Electronic cigarette use during pregnancy and the risk of adverse birth outcomes: A cross-sectional surveillance study of the US Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) population
Open accessAbstract
Background: Research on health effects and potential harms of electronic cigarette (EC) use during pregnancy is limited. We sought to determine the risks of pregnancy EC use on pregnancy-related adverse birth outcomes and assess whether quitting ECs reduces the risks. Methods: Women with singleton live births who participated in the US Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) survey study 2016–2020 were classified into four mutually exclusive groups, by their use of ECs and combustible cigarettes (CCs) during pregnancy: non-use, EC only use, CC only use, and dual use. We determined the risk of preterm birth, low birth weight, and small-for-gestational-age (SGA) by comparing cigarette users to non-users with a modified Poisson regression model adjusting for covariates. In a subset of women who all used ECs prior to pregnancy, we determined whether quitting EC use reduces the risk of preterm birth, low birth weight, and SGA by comparing to those who continued its use. All analyses were weighted to account for the PRAMS survey design and non-response rate. Results: Of the 190,707 women (weighted N = 10,202,413) included, 92.1% reported cigarette non-use, 0.5% EC only use, 6.7% CC only use, and 0.7% dual use during pregnancy. Compared with non-use, EC only use was associated with a significantly increased risk of preterm birth (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]: 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00, 1.65) and low birth weight (aRR: 1.38, 95%CI: 1.09, 1.75), but not SGA (aRR: 1.04, 95%CI: 0.76, 1.44). Among 7,877 (weighted N = 422,533) women EC users, quitting use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of low birth weight (aRR: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.62, 0.94) and SGA (aRR: 0.77, 95%CI: 0.62, 0.94) compared to those who continued to use ECs during pregnancy. Conclusions: Pregnancy EC use, by itself or dual use with CC, is associated with preterm birth and low birth weight. Quitting use reduces that risk. ECs should not be considered as a safe alternative nor a viable gestational smoking cessation strategy.
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
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.
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?
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]”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
The Results section (page unavailable) reports a significantly increased risk of preterm birth for exclusive e-cigarette users compared with non-users (adjusted risk ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.00–1.65). Thus this paper does not support its inclusion among studies said to find no significant difference for that comparison. Its nonsignificant preterm-birth result concerns dual users, not exclusive vapers. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredEight studies reported that exclusive-vaping did not have a significantly different risk of preterm birth than non-use.
“To summarise the findings for PTB/GA, eight studies reported that exclusive-vaping did not have a significantly different risk than non-use [32, 40, 42, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54]”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
The Results section reports that exclusive e-cigarette use, compared with non-use, was associated with a significantly increased risk of preterm birth (aRR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00–1.65). That is contrary to counting this study among those reporting no significant difference. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOne study showed that quitting vaping during pregnancy versus continuing was not significantly associated with a reduced risk of SGA when controlling for smoking during the three months before pregnancy or in the last 3 months of pregnancy.
“One study showed that quitting vaping during pregnancy vs continuing was not significantly associated with a reduced risk of SGA when controlling for smoking during the three months before pregnancy or in the last 3 months of pregnancy [32].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
The Study design and analysis section says the quitting-versus-continuing comparison adjusted for conventional cigarette use before and during pregnancy. The Results report a significantly reduced SGA risk in the adjusted analysis (aRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62–0.94). The non-significant SGA result applies instead to the subset who used no conventional cigarettes before or during pregnancy. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn one study, the association between quitting vaping during pregnancy and reduced LBW risk was not significant when focusing on those who did not smoke during the three months before pregnancy or in the last three months of pregnancy.
“However, when focusing the analysis on those who did not smoke during the three months before pregnancy, or in the last three months of pregnancy, this association was not significant.”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
The Results (Fig. 4; page unavailable in our copy) say the opposite: among women who did not use conventional cigarettes before or during pregnancy, quitting e-cigarettes was associated with a statistically significant reduction in low-birth-weight risk (aRR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42–0.84). The nonsignificant outcome reported for that subgroup was small-for-gestational-age birth, not low birth weight. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe largest sample size of exclusive-vapers was 977.
“The largest sample size of exclusive-vapers was 977 [32].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Table 1 in the Results lists 977 participants in the EC-only-use group, supporting the stated sample size for exclusive vapers. The paper does not establish that this was the largest such sample across studies. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The finding for the latter two PRAMS studies is inconsistent with five of the above PRAMS studies which found no difference between the groups.
“The finding for the latter two PRAMS studies is inconsistent with five of the above PRAMS studies which found no difference between the groups [32, 42, 50, 53, 54].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
The Results (page unavailable) report no significant difference in small-for-gestational-age births between electronic-cigarette-only users and non-users. But they report significantly higher risks of preterm birth and low birth weight for electronic-cigarette-only users, so the unqualified statement that this study found no difference between the groups overstates its findings. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe finding for the latter two PRAMS studies is inconsistent with six of the above PRAMS studies which found no group differences.
“Similar to the findings for PTB/GA, the finding for the latter two ‘PRAMS’ studies is inconsistent with six of the above PRAMS studies which found no group differences [32, 35, 42, 50, 53, 54].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
The Results (page unavailable) report no significant difference in small-for-gestational-age births between electronic-cigarette-only users and non-users, supporting a no-difference finding for that outcome. But the same analysis reports significantly higher risks of preterm birth and low birth weight, so the unqualified description of this study as finding “no group differences” is too broad. The comparison with the other PRAMS studies is the citing authors’ framing, not a finding established by this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe largest sample of dual-users was 1,404.
“The largest sample of dual-users was 1,404 [32].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
In 17 studies it was not assessed whether any of those counted as vaping used non-nicotine vapes.
“and in 17 studies it was not assessed whether any of those counted as vaping used non-nicotine vapes [32, 35, 36, 38, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48–56].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Among those who did not smoke during the three months before pregnancy or in the last three months of pregnancy, those who quit vaping had a significantly lower risk of preterm birth.
“however, among those who did not smoke during the three months before pregnancy or in the last three months of pregnancy, those who quit vaping had a significantly lower risk of PTB.”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Compared with those who continued to vape, those who quit vaping during pregnancy did not have a significantly lower risk of preterm birth.
“Another study found that compared with those who continued to vape, those who quit vaping during pregnancy did not have a significantly lower risk of preterm birth [32];”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
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]”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Six of nine studies comparing dual-use and non-use reported a significantly higher prevalence of SGA for dual-users.
“Of nine studies comparing dual-use and non-use [32, 34–36, 42, 50, 52–54], six reported a significantly higher prevalence of SGA for dual-users [32, 42, 50, 52–54].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Among eight studies comparing exclusive-vaping and non-use, four observed a higher likelihood of LBW for infants of exclusive-vapers.
“and four observed a higher likelihood of LBW for infants of exclusive-vapers [32, 43, 49, 50].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Eight of ten studies comparing SGA or MBC prevalence between exclusive-vapers and non-users reported no significant differences.
“Eight of ten studies comparing SGA or MBC prevalence between exclusive-vapers and non-users reported no significant differences [32, 34, 35, 42, 46, 50, 53, 54].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
One study showed that quitting vaping during pregnancy versus continuing vaping was significantly associated with a reduced risk of LBW.
“One study showed that quitting vaping during pregnancy vs continuing vaping was significantly associated with a reduced risk of LBW [32].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Of three studies comparing dual-users and non-users, one observed higher risk of LBW for dual-users.
“and the third observed higher risk of LBW for dual-users [32].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Four studies reported that exclusive-vaping had a significantly higher risk of LBW/BW than non-use.
“and four reported that exclusive-vaping had a significantly higher risk [32, 43, 49, 50].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
In one study, the association between exclusive-vaping and LBW was not significant when adjusting for gestational age or when restricting the analysis to full-term births.
“In one of these studies the association between exclusive-vaping and LBW was not significant when adjusting for GA or when restricting the analysis to full-term births, indicating that effects on LBW could be mediated by PTB (although the risk of PTB was not significantly associated with exclusive vaping – see above) [32].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
There are conflicting findings for the five PRAMS studies for LBW/BW comparisons.
“For the latter comparisons, as for PTB/GA and SGA/MBC, there are conflicting findings for the five ‘PRAMS’ studies [32, 42, 43, 49, 50].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
The effects of exclusive-vaping on LBW could be mediated by preterm birth.
“indicating that effects on LBW could be mediated by PTB”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
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
Jaddoe, V. W. V., Troe, E. W. M., Hofman, A., Mackenbach, J. P., Moll, H. A., Steegers, E. A. P., & Witteman, J. C. M. (2008) · Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00916.x · Cited by 339 · see citing works
Orzabal, M. R., Lunde-Young, E. R., Ramirez, J. I., Howe, S. Y. F., Naik, V. D., Lee, J., Heaps, C. L., Threadgill, D. W., & Ramadoss, J. (2019) · Translational Research · doi:10.1016/j.trsl.2019.01.001 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Wang, X., Lee, N. L., & Burstyn, I. (2020) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106041 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Adverse Birth Outcomes Associated With Prepregnancy and Prenatal Electronic Cigarette Use
Regan, A. K., Bombard, J. M., O’Hegarty, M. M., Smith, R. A., & Tong, V. T. (2021) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000004432 · Cited by 74 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Our results confirm and expand upon previous reports of the association between pregnancy EC use and poor birth outcomes and provide an explanation for inconsistencies in findings among prior studies [24–30].”
ResultKim, S., & Oancea, S. C. (2020) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-020-03247-6 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
England, L. J., Tong, V. T., Koblitz, A., Kish-Doto, J., Lynch, M. M., & Southwell, B. G. (2016) · Preventive Medicine Reports · doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.09.002 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Opondo, C., Harrison, S., Alderdice, F., Carson, C., & Quigley, M. A. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0252817 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Associations between electronic nicotine delivery systems and birth outcomes
Hawkins, S. S., Wylie, B. J., & Hacker, M. R. (2022) · The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · doi:10.1080/14767058.2021.1929156 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- [2]Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF. Low birth weight in the United States. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007; 85(2): 584S– 90S. Epub 2007/02/08. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/85.2.584S. 17284760 · DOI
- [3]Petrou S. Economic consequences of preterm birth and low birthweight. BJOG. 2003; 110 Suppl 20: 17– 23. Epub 2003/05/24.. 12763106
- [4]Hoyert DL, Freedman MA, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2000. Pediatrics. 2001; 108(6): 1241– 55. Epub 2001/12/04. doi: 10.1542/peds.108.6.1241. 11731644 · DOI
- [7]Abel EL. Smoking during pregnancy: a review of effects on growth and development of offspring. Hum Biol. 1980; 52(4): 593– 625. Epub 1980/12/01.. 7009384
- [8]Force USPST Krist AH, Davidson KW Mangione CM, Barry MJ, Cabana M, et al. Interventions for Tobacco Smoking Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Persons: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2021; 325(3): 265– 79. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.25019. 33464343 · DOI · Paper page
- [9]McCubbin A, Fallin-Bennett A, Barnett J, Ashford K. Perceptions and use of electronic cigarettes in pregnancy. Health Educ Res. 2017; 32(1): 22– 32. Epub 2017/02/06. doi: 10.1093/her/cyw059; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5914445. 28158490 PMC5914445 · DOI · Paper page
- [10]Wagner NJ, Camerota M, Propper C. Prevalence and Perceptions of Electronic Cigarette Use during Pregnancy. Matern Child Health J. 2017; 21(8): 1655– 61. Epub 2017/01/14. doi: 10.1007/s10995-016-2257-9; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5509528. 28084577 PMC5509528 · DOI · Paper page
- [11]Mark KS, Farquhar B, Chisolm MS, Coleman-Cowger VH, Terplan M. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice of Electronic Cigarette Use Among Pregnant Women. J Addict Med. 2015; 9(4): 266– 72. Epub 2015/05/15. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000128. 25974378 · DOI
- [12]Bhandari NR, Day KD, Payakachat N, Franks AM, McCain KR, Ragland D. Use and Risk Perception of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Tobacco in Pregnancy. Womens Health Issues. 2018; 28(3): 251– 7. Epub 20180324. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2018.02.005. 29588116 · DOI
- [14]Obisesan OH, Osei AD, Uddin SMI, Dzaye O, Cainzos-Achirica M, Mirbolouk M, et al. E-Cigarette Use Patterns and High-Risk Behaviors in Pregnancy: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2016–2018. Am J Prev Med. 2020; 59(2): 187– 95. Epub 2020/05/05. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.02.015; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8349302. 32362509 PMC8349302 · DOI · Paper page
- [16]Hartmann-Boyce J, Livingstone-Banks J, Ordonez-Mena JM, Fanshawe TR, Lindson N, Freeman SC, et al. Behavioural interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021; 1: CD013229. Epub 20210104. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013229.pub2. 33411338 PMC11354481 · DOI · Paper page
- [17]Williams M, Villarreal A, Bozhilov K, Lin S, Talbot P. Metal and silicate particles including nanoparticles are present in electronic cigarette cartomizer fluid and aerosol. PloS one. 2013; 8(3): e57987. Epub 2013/03/26. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057987; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3603976. 23526962 PMC3603976 · DOI
- [18]Raez-Villanueva S, Ma C, Kleiboer S, Holloway AC. The effects of electronic cigarette vapor on placental trophoblast cell function. Reprod Toxicol. 2018; 81: 115– 21. Epub 2018/07/27. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2018.07.084. 30048688 · DOI
- [20]Shulman HB D ’Angelo DV, Harrison L, Smith RA, Warner L. The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS): Overview of Design and Methodology. Am J Public Health. 2018; 108(10): 1305– 13. Epub 2018/08/24. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304563; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6137777. 30138070 PMC6137777 · DOI · Paper page
- [29]McDonnell BP, Dicker P, Regan CL. Electronic cigarettes and obstetric outcomes: a prospective observational study. BJOG. 2020; 127(6): 750– 6. Epub 2020/02/10. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16110. 32036628 · DOI · Paper page
- [30]Cardenas VM, Ali MM, Fischbach LA, Nembhard WN. Dual use of cigarettes and electronic nicotine delivery systems during pregnancy and the risk of small for gestational age neonates. Ann Epidemiol. 2020; 52: 86– 92 e2. Epub 2020/08/18. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2020.08.002. 32805398 · DOI · Paper page
- [32]National Academies of Sciences E, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on the Review of the Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems. Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2018. 29894118
- [33]Orzabal M, Ramadoss J. Impact of Electronic Cigarette Aerosols on Pregnancy and Early Development. Curr Opin Toxicol. 2019; 14: 14– 20. Epub 2019/06/20. doi: 10.1016/j.cotox.2019.05.001; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6581464. 31214660 PMC6581464 · DOI
- [34]Ziogas C, Hillyer J, Saftlas AF, Spracklen CN. Validation of birth certificate and maternal recall of events in labor and delivery with medical records in the Iowa health in pregnancy study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022; 22(1): 232. Epub 20220322. doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04581-7; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8939232. 35317778 PMC8939232 · DOI
- [35]Shenkin SD, Zhang MG, Der G, Mathur S, Mina TH, Reynolds RM. Validity of recalled v. recorded birth weight: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2017; 8(2): 137– 48. Epub 20161025. doi: 10.1017/S2040174416000581. 27776565 · DOI
- [36]Kvalvik LG, Nilsen RM, Skjaerven R, Vollset SE, Midttun O, Ueland PM, et al. Self-reported smoking status and plasma cotinine concentrations among pregnant women in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study. Pediatr Res. 2012; 72(1): 101– 7. Epub 20120322. doi: 10.1038/pr.2012.36; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3630336. 22441375 PMC3630336 · DOI
- [37]Mattsson K, Kallen K, Rignell-Hydbom A, Lindh CH, Jonsson BA, Gustafsson P, et al. Cotinine Validation of Self-Reported Smoking During Pregnancy in the Swedish Medical Birth Register. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016; 18(1): 79– 83. Epub 20150420. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntv087. 25895950 · DOI
- [38]Addicott MA, Sutfin EL, Reynolds LM, Donny EC, Matich EK, Hsu PC. Biochemical validation of self-reported electronic nicotine delivery system and tobacco heaviness of use. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2022. Epub 20220915. doi: 10.1037/pha0000604. 36107700 PMC10184506 · DOI
- [39]Boykan R, Messina CR, Chateau G, Eliscu A, Tolentino J, Goniewicz ML. Self-Reported Use of Tobacco, E-cigarettes, and Marijuana Versus Urinary Biomarkers. Pediatrics. 2019; 143(5). doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3531. 31010908 · DOI
- [40]Son Y, Wackowski O, Weisel C, Schwander S, Mainelis G, Delnevo C, et al. Evaluation of E-Vapor Nicotine and Nicotyrine Concentrations under Various E-Liquid Compositions, Device Settings, and Vaping Topographies. Chem Res Toxicol. 2018; 31(9): 861– 8. Epub 20180821. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.8b00063; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6350771. 30080399 PMC6350771 · DOI
- [41]Son Y, Weisel C, Wackowski O, Schwander S, Delnevo C, Meng Q. The Impact of Device Settings, Use Patterns, and Flavorings on Carbonyl Emissions from Electronic Cigarettes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(16). Epub 20200805. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17165650; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7460324. 32764435 PMC7460324 · DOI
- [42]Talih S, Balhas Z, Eissenberg T, Salman R, Karaoghlanian N, El Hellani A, et al. Effects of user puff topography, device voltage, and liquid nicotine concentration on electronic cigarette nicotine yield: measurements and model predictions. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015; 17(2): 150– 7. Epub 20140903. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu174; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4837998. 25187061 PMC4837998 · DOI
- [43]Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, Romero R. Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008; 371(9606): 75– 84. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60074-4; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7134569. 18177778 PMC7134569 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes.
Ussher, M., Fleming, J., & Brose, L. (2024) · BMC pregnancy and childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-024-06633-6 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“Comparisons Nine studies compared outcomes for all four groups key groups: exclusive-smokers, exclusive-vapers, dual-users and non-users [32, 34, 35, 42, 44, 46, 47, 53, 55].”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
- Authors
- Ammar, L., Tindle, H. A., Miller, A. M., Adgent, M. A., Nian, H., Ryckman, K. K., Mogos, M., Piano, M. R., Xie, E., Snyder, B. M., Ramesh, A., Yu, C., Hartert, T. V., & Wu, P.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System (US)
- Tennessee Department of Health (US)
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
- University of Iowa (US)
- NYU Langone Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wu, Pingsheng
- ORCID
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2023-10-24
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e0287348
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10597477
- OpenAlex
- W4387902567
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8
- FWCI
- 4.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R21 DA052026)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R03 HD100708)
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K01 HL161257)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (TL1 TR002244)
- 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, adverse birth outcomes, preterm birth, low birth weight, small for gestational age, combustible cigarettes, dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, pregnancy risk, maternal smoking cessation, gestational age at delivery, maternal education, maternal income
- MeSH terms
- Vaping, Arrhythmias, Cardiac, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Fetal Growth Retardation, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Pregnancy, Risk Assessment, Premature Birth, 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