The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
“Smoking Revolution”
Open accessAbstract
Background Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have been increasingly available and marketed in the U.S. since 2007. As patterns of product adoption are frequently driven and reinforced by marketing, it is important to understand the marketing claims encountered by consumers. Purpose To describe the main advertising claims made on branded e-cigarette retail websites. Methods Websites were retrieved from two major search engines in 2011 using iterative searches with the following terms: electronic cigarette, e-cigarette, e-cig, and personal vaporizer. Fifty-nine websites met inclusion criteria, and 13 marketing claims were coded for main marketing messages in 2012. Results Ninety-five percent of the websites made explicit or implicit health-related claims, 64% had a smoking cessation-related claim, 22% featured doctors, and 76% claimed that the product does not produce secondhand smoke. Comparisons to cigarettes included claims that e-cigarettes were cleaner (95%) and cheaper (93%). Eighty-eight percent stated that the product could be smoked anywhere and 71% mentioned using the product to circumvent clean air policies. Candy, fruit, and coffee flavors were offered on most sites. Youthful appeals included images or claims of modernity (73%), increased social status (44%), enhanced social activity (32%), romance (31%), and use by celebrities (22%). Conclusions Health claims and smoking cessation messages that are unsupported by current scientific evidence are frequently used to sell e-cigarettes. Implied and overt health claims, the presence of doctors on websites, celebrity endorsements, and the use of characterizing flavors should be prohibited.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312450709336664 · Cited by 4,225
Cited by
E-Cigarettes: A Scientific Review
Grana, R., Benowitz, N., & Glantz, S. A. (2014) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667 · Cited by 1,194
“key marketing messages that e-cigarettes can be used everywhere without the restrictions and social stigma of smoking.(3,119)”
Self-citationKalkhoran, S., & Glantz, S. A. (2016) · The Lancet Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(15)00521-4 · Cited by 895
Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarette Use Among US Adolescents: A Cross-sectional Study
Dutra, L. M., & Glantz, S. A. (2014) · JAMA Pediatrics · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.5488 · Cited by 496
Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review
Glasser, A. M., Collins, L., Pearson, J. L., Abudayyeh, H., Niaura, R. S., Abrams, D. B., & Villanti, A. C. (2017) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.10.036 · Cited by 473
Bunnell, R. E., Agaku, I. T., Arrazola, R. A., Apelberg, B. J., Caraballo, R. S., Corey, C. G., Coleman, B. N., Dube, S. R., & King, B. A. (2015) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu166 · Cited by 336
Metadata
- Authors
- Grana, R. A., & Ling, P. M.
- Venue
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 395-403
- ISSN
- 0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W48624414
- Cited by
- 509
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 47.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: “Smoking Revolution”. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.12.010
- The paper
- Grana, R. A., & Ling, P. M. (2014). “Smoking Revolution”. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.12.010
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.