Myth: Alternative nicotine products are as dangerous as smoking: Difference between revisions

Line 57: Line 57:
*[https://sci-hub.se/10.1111/add.14365 PDF Version]
*[https://sci-hub.se/10.1111/add.14365 PDF Version]
*Citation: Farsalinos KE, Yannovits N, Sarri T, Voudris V, Poulas K, Leischow SJ. Carbonyl emissions from a novel heated tobacco product (IQOS): comparison with an e-cigarette and a tobacco cigarette. Addiction. 2018 Nov;113(11):2099-2106. doi: 10.1111/add.14365. Epub 2018 Jul 10. PMID: 29920842.
*Citation: Farsalinos KE, Yannovits N, Sarri T, Voudris V, Poulas K, Leischow SJ. Carbonyl emissions from a novel heated tobacco product (IQOS): comparison with an e-cigarette and a tobacco cigarette. Addiction. 2018 Nov;113(11):2099-2106. doi: 10.1111/add.14365. Epub 2018 Jul 10. PMID: 29920842.
<br>
='''Nicotine Pouches'''=
===2022: [https://f1000research.com/articles/9-1225#f1 Nicotine products relative risk assessment: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations<nowiki>]</nowiki> Previously titled: Nicotine products relative risk assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis]===
*In this update, 70 new studies were added to the synthesis, making a total of 123 studies included. All combustible tobacco products score between 40 and 100, with bidis and smokeless (rest of world) also in this range. All other products have a combined risk score of 10 or less, including U.S. chewing tobacco, U.S. dipping tobacco, snus, heat-not-burn tobacco, electronic cigarettes, non-tobacco pouches and nicotine replacement therapy.
*Citation: Murkett R, Rugh M and Ding B. Nicotine products relative risk assessment: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 9:1225 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.26762.2)
<br>
='''Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT)'''=
===2022: [https://f1000research.com/articles/9-1225#f1 Nicotine products relative risk assessment: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations<nowiki>]</nowiki> Previously titled: Nicotine products relative risk assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis]===
*In this update, 70 new studies were added to the synthesis, making a total of 123 studies included. All combustible tobacco products score between 40 and 100, with bidis and smokeless (rest of world) also in this range. All other products have a combined risk score of 10 or less, including U.S. chewing tobacco, U.S. dipping tobacco, snus, heat-not-burn tobacco, electronic cigarettes, non-tobacco pouches and nicotine replacement therapy.
*Citation: Murkett R, Rugh M and Ding B. Nicotine products relative risk assessment: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 9:1225 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.26762.2)
<br>
<br>