John B Correa1, Idan Ariel1, Nicole S Menzie1, Thomas H Brandon2. 1. Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33620, USA; Tobacco Research & Intervention Program, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, 4115 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33617, USA. 2. Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33620, USA; Tobacco Research & Intervention Program, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, 4115 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33617, USA. Electronic address: thomas.brandon@moffitt.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emergence of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS, or "e-cigarettes") has resulted in nicotine and tobacco scientists committing increased resources to studying these products. Despite this surge of research on various topics related to e-cigarettes, it is important to characterize the evolving e-cigarette research landscape as a way to identify important future research directions. The purpose of this review was to broadly categorize published scholarly work on e-cigarettes using a structured, multi-level coding scheme. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to collect articles on e-cigarettes that were published in peer-reviewed journals from 2006 through 2014. Studies were classified through 3 coding waves. Articles were first divided into research reports, literature reviews and opinions/editorials. Research reports were further categorized to determine the proportion of these studies using human participants. Finally, human studies were classified based on their methodologies: descriptive, predictive, explanatory, and intervention. RESULTS: Research reports (n=224) and opinions/editorials (n=248) were published at similar rates during this time period. All types of articles showed exponential rates of increase in more recent years. 76.4% of human research studies were descriptive in nature, with very little research employing experimental (6.8%) or intervention-based methodologies (5.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This review reinforces the idea that e-cigarettes are a disruptive technology exerting substantial influence on nicotine and tobacco science. This review also suggests that opinions on e-cigarettes may be outpacing our scientific understanding of these devices. Our findings highlight the need for more e-cigarette research involving experimental, intervention, and longitudinal designs. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: The emergence of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS, or "e-cigarettes") has resulted in nicotine and tobacco scientists committing increased resources to studying these products. Despite this surge of research on various topics related to e-cigarettes, it is important to characterize the evolving e-cigarette research landscape as a way to identify important future research directions. The purpose of this review was to broadly categorize published scholarly work on e-cigarettes using a structured, multi-level coding scheme. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to collect articles on e-cigarettes that were published in peer-reviewed journals from 2006 through 2014. Studies were classified through 3 coding waves. Articles were first divided into research reports, literature reviews and opinions/editorials. Research reports were further categorized to determine the proportion of these studies using humanparticipants. Finally, human studies were classified based on their methodologies: descriptive, predictive, explanatory, and intervention. RESULTS: Research reports (n=224) and opinions/editorials (n=248) were published at similar rates during this time period. All types of articles showed exponential rates of increase in more recent years. 76.4% of human research studies were descriptive in nature, with very little research employing experimental (6.8%) or intervention-based methodologies (5.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This review reinforces the idea that e-cigarettes are a disruptive technology exerting substantial influence on nicotine and tobacco science. This review also suggests that opinions on e-cigarettes may be outpacing our scientific understanding of these devices. Our findings highlight the need for more e-cigarette research involving experimental, intervention, and longitudinal designs. Copyright Â
Authors: Aruni Bhatnagar; Laurie P Whitsel; Kurt M Ribisl; Chris Bullen; Frank Chaloupka; Mariann R Piano; Rose Marie Robertson; Timothy McAuley; David Goff; Neal Benowitz Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-08-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz; Jakub Knysak; Michal Gawron; Leon Kosmider; Andrzej Sobczak; Jolanta Kurek; Adam Prokopowicz; Magdalena Jablonska-Czapla; Czeslawa Rosik-Dulewska; Christopher Havel; Peyton Jacob; Neal Benowitz Journal: Tob Control Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Iain Chalmers; Michael B Bracken; Ben Djulbegovic; Silvio Garattini; Jonathan Grant; A Metin Gülmezoglu; David W Howells; John P A Ioannidis; Sandy Oliver Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Claire Adams Spears; Dina M Jones; Scott R Weaver; Bo Yang; Terry F Pechacek; Michael P Eriksen Journal: Addiction Date: 2018-11-05 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Claire Adams Spears; Dina M Jones; Scott R Weaver; Jidong Huang; Bo Yang; Terry F Pechacek; Michael P Eriksen Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Peter G Shields; Micah Berman; Theodore M Brasky; Jo L Freudenheim; Ewy Mathe; Joseph P McElroy; Min-Ae Song; Mark D Wewers Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kimberley R Isett; Simone Rosenblum; Julie Ann Barna; Diana Hicks; Gregg H Gilbert; Julia Melkers Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Bethea A Kleykamp; Cassandra D Gipson; Olivia M Maynard; Jorien L Treur; Jason A Oliver Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Valeria Lallai; Yen-Chu Chen; Mikayla M Roybal; Eashan R Kotha; James P Fowler; Andres Staben; Angelique Cortez; Christie D Fowler Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Tamlin S Conner; Jiaxu Zeng; Mei-Ling Blank; Vicky He; Janet Hoek Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Junhan Cho; Nicholas I Goldenson; Matthew G Kirkpatrick; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Raina D Pang; Adam M Leventhal Journal: Addiction Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 6.526