Cited by 43Smoking Behavior and CessationPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsPregnancy and Medication Impact

Patterns of combustible and electronic cigarette use during pregnancy and associated pregnancy outcomes

Open access
Regan, Annette K., Pereira, Gavin·2021·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Although pregnant smokers may perceive electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as safe alternatives to smoking combustible cigarettes, few studies have evaluated perinatal e-cigarette use and its associated health effects. We analyzed data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS, 2016–2018) for 16,022 women who recently gave birth and reported smoking combustible cigarettes prior to pregnancy. Using average marginal predictive values from multivariable logistic regression to produce adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs), we estimated the prevalence of combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes associated with e-cigarette use. In total, 14.8% of smoking women reported using e-cigarettes prior to pregnancy. There was no association between e-cigarette use prior to pregnancy and combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy (aPR 0.95; 95% CI 0.88, 1.02); however, e-cigarette use during pregnancy was associated with higher prevalence of combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy (aPR 1.65; 95% CI 1.52, 1.80). In this sample, we did not observe evidence to support reduced risk of preterm birth, small-for-gestational age and low birthweight compared to combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy. The prevalence of LBW was higher for those who used e-cigarettes, even exclusively, compared to women who quit smoking cigarettes entirely. These results suggest that e-cigarettes should not be considered a safe alternative to combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-021-92930-5

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The finding for one of the studies comparing risk of preterm birth for exclusive-vaping and exclusive-smoking should be treated with caution because it also reported no absolute risk for preterm birth.

    “The finding for one of the latter studies should be treated with caution as they also reported no absolute risk for PTB [50].”

    From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [50]

    Table 3 in the Results (“Association with birth outcomes”) reports preterm-birth prevalence for both e-cigarette-only users and current smokers, including adjusted estimates of 9.2% and 10.8%, respectively. The Discussion cautions that the study had limited power to detect a difference, but the claim that it reported no absolute preterm-birth risk is contrary to the table. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Two studies reported no significant difference in SGA/MBC between exclusive-vaping and exclusive-smoking.

    “and two reported no significant difference for these two groups [43, 50].”

    From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Results (Association with birth outcomes; page unavailable) report no significant difference in SGA between e-cigarette-only users and current smokers. The paper also reports low birthweight, but our copy does not identify or report an outcome called MBC, so it does not support that part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The findings of similar risk of exclusive-smoking and exclusive-vaping for six studies, for some outcomes, need to be treated with caution, as they simultaneously found no significantly increased risk for exclusive-vaping compared with non-use.

    “The findings of similar risk of exclusive-smoking and exclusive-vaping for six studies, for some outcomes, need to be treated with caution, as they simultaneously found no significantly increased risk for exclusive-vaping compared with non-use [40, 45–47, 50, 54].”

    From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [50]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Six studies observed no significant group differences in preterm birth rates between exclusive-vapers and non-users.

    “Six of these studies observed no significant group differences in PTB rates [32, 42, 48, 50, 53, 54]”
  • Five studies observed no significant differences in preterm birth rates between dual-users and non-users.

    “Five studies observed no significant differences in PTB rates between dual-users and non-users [32, 42, 50, 53, 54]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [31]Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Smoking Cessation: A Report of the Surgeon General 2020 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 32255575

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Regan, A. K., & Pereira, G.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO)
Corresponding author
Regan, Annette K.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2021-06-29
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
13508-13508
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3176573805
Cited by
43
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9
FWCI
5.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT1099655)
  • Norges Forskningsråd (262700)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
Keywords
electronic cigarettes, combustible cigarette smoking, pregnancy, preterm birth, small for gestational age, low birth weight, birth outcomes, smoking cessation, Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System
MeSH terms
Vaping, Cigarette Smoking, Adult, Female, Humans, Infant, Low Birth Weight, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Small for Gestational Age, Prevalence, Risk Assessment, Premature Birth, Tobacco Products, Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems

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