The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Electronic cigarettes: a survey of users
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about users of electronic cigarettes, or their opinions, satisfaction or how and why they use such products. METHODS: An internet survey of 81 ever-users of ecigarettes in 2009. Participants answered open-ended questions on use of, and opinions about, ecigarettes. RESULTS: Respondents (73 current and 8 former users) lived in France, Canada, Belgium or Switzerland. Most respondents (77%) were men; 63% were former smokers and 37% were current smokers. They had used e-cigarettes for 100 days (median) and drew 175 puffs per day (median). Participants used the ecigarette either to quit smoking (53 comments), to reduce their cigarette consumption (14 comments), in order not to disturb other people with smoke (20 comments), or in smoke-free places (21 comments). Positive effects reported with ecigarettes included their usefulness to quit smoking, and the benefits of abstinence from smoking (less coughing, improved breathing, better physical fitness). Respondents also enjoyed the flavour of ecigarettes and the sensation of inhalation. Side effects included dryness of the mouth and throat. Respondents complained about the frequent technical failures of ecigarettes and had some concerns about the possible toxicity of the devices and about their future legal status. CONCLUSIONS: Ecigarettes were used mainly to quit smoking, and may be helpful for this purpose, but several respondents were concerned about potential toxicity. There are very few published studies on ecigarettes and research is urgently required, particularly on the efficacy and toxicity of these devices.
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
Wang, D., Connock, M., Barton, P., Fry-Smith, A., Aveyard, P., & Moore, D. (2008) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta12020 · Cited by 137
Cited by
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial.
Bullen, C., Howe, C., Laugesen, M., McRobbie, H., Parag, V., Williman, J., & Walker, N. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61842-5 · Cited by 1,094
Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
Adkison, S. E., O'Connor, R. J., Bansal-Travers, M., Hyland, A., Borland, R., Yong, H.-H., Cummings, K. M., McNeill, A., Thrasher, J. F., Hammond, D., et al. (2013) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.10.018 · Cited by 699
Hajek, P., Etter, J., Benowitz, N., Eissenberg, T., & McRobbie, H. (2014) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.12659 · Cited by 546
Self-citationWilliams, M., Villarreal, A., Bozhilov, K., Lin, S., & Talbot, P. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057987 · Cited by 530
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Etter, J.-F.
- Venue
- BMC Public Health
- Published
- 2010-05-04
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 231-231
- ISSN
- 1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2028343202
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Electronic cigarettes: a survey of users. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2458-10-231
- The paper
- Etter, J.-F. (2010). Electronic cigarettes: a survey of users. BMC Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-231
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.