Cited by 26Smoking Behavior and CessationPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsPregnancy and Medication Impact

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 access
Ammar, Lin, Tindle, Hilary A., Miller, Angela M., Adgent, Margaret A., Nian, Hui, Ryckman, Kelli K., Mogos, Mulubrhan, Piano, Mariann R. +6 more·2023·PLOS ONE

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0287348

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • 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 measured
  • Eight 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 measured
  • One 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 measured
  • In 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 measured
  • The 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

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: 28

  1. [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
  2. [3]Petrou S. Economic consequences of preterm birth and low birthweight. BJOG. 2003; 110 Suppl 20: 17– 23. Epub 2003/05/24.. 12763106
  3. [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
  4. [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
  5. [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
  6. [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
  7. [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
  8. [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
  9. [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
  10. [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
  11. [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
  12. [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
  13. [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
  14. [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
  15. [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
  16. [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
  17. [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
  18. [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
  19. [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
  20. [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
  21. [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
  22. [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
  23. [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
  24. [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
  25. [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
  26. [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
  27. [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
  28. [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

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
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2023-10-24
Volume
18
Issue
10
Pages
e0287348
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
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
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