Cited by 93Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery

A naturalistic, randomized pilot trial of e-cigarettes: uptake, exposure, and behavioral effects.

Open access
Carpenter, Matthew J., Heckman, Bryan W., Wahlquist, Amy E., Wagener, Theodore L., Goniewicz, Maciej L., Gray, Kevin M., Froeliger, Brett, Cummings, K. Michael·2017·Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract

Background: Most studies of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) compare self-selected users versus nonusers. The few randomized studies to date generally support a positive impact on reducing smoking behavior, but these studies are focused on guided ENDS use. This study presents a randomized, naturalistic trial of ENDS with prospective outcomes of uptake and behavioral changes in smoking. Methods: Adult smokers with minimal ENDS history were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive product for 3 weeks (n = 46), or not (n = 22). Changes in nicotine delivery (16 vs. 24 mg), midway through the study allowed a compelling opportunity to examine two ENDS products compared with the control group. Primary outcomes, assessed via daily diaries during sampling period and in-person laboratory visits over 4 months, included uptake and usage of ENDS, cessation-related outcomes, and exposure to smoke constituents. Results: All ENDS participants tried product at least once, with 48% of 24 mg and 30% of 16 mg using their assigned product for the entire sampling period. Within the 24 mg ENDs group, 57% made an independent purchase of ENDS, versus 28% of 16 mg, and 14% of control participants (P = 0.01). Smokers in both ENDS groups significantly reduced their smoking, whereas control participants did not (P = 0.03). Cessation behaviors (quit attempts, biologically verified abstinence) numerically but not statistically favored ENDS participants. Conclusions: Results suggest that cigarette smokers are willing to use ENDS with trends toward reduced cigarette smoking and positive changes in cessation-related behaviors. Impact: Randomized, naturalistic trials such as presented herein are needed to understand the population impact of e-cigarettes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(12); 1795–803. ©2017 AACR.

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 · 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-17-0460

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • Five trials (N=3,117) were included that evaluated the effectiveness of using e-cigarettes to help current conventional smokers stop or reduce smoking compared with placebo or nicotine replacement therapy.

    “Five trials (N=3,117) were included that evaluated the effectiveness of using e-cigarettes to help current conventional smokers stop or reduce smoking compared with placebo or nicotine replacement therapy ([eTable 3](#SD1)).[76](#R76),[77](#R77),[86](#R86),[87](#R87),[89](#R89)”

    From Interventions for Tobacco Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Persons (2021) · cites this paper as [77]

    The paper’s Methods describe a randomized trial in 68 adult smokers that assessed e-cigarette use and cessation-related outcomes. But the Discussion says its comparator was a non-sampling control, not a placebo e-cigarette or nicotine replacement therapy. The paper also does not establish the citing document’s aggregate of five trials (N=3,117). (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carpenter, M. J., Heckman, B. W., Wahlquist, A. E., Wagener, T. L., Goniewicz, M. L., Gray, K. M., Froeliger, B., & Cummings, K. M.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (US)
  • Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Carpenter, Matthew J.
Venue
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Published
2017-11-30
Volume
26
Issue
12
Pages
1795-1803
ISSN
  • 1055-9965 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-7755
OpenAlex
W2767521941
Cited by
93
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
NIH (R21 DA037407, P01 CA200512, UL1 TR001450, and P30 CA138313)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Inhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Keywords
electronic cigarettes, smoking cessation, quit attempts, abstinence
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nicotine, Pilot Projects, Prospective Studies, Smoking Cessation, Tobacco Use Cessation Devices, 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