| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
===2022: Comments RE: [https://pubpeer.com/publications/1FF8B75DFC81492DEBC8E214F63098 Consumption of JUUL vs. Other E-Cigarette Brands among U.S. E-Cigarette Users: Evidence from Wave 5 of the PATH Study]=== | ===2022: Comments RE: [https://pubpeer.com/publications/1FF8B75DFC81492DEBC8E214F63098 Consumption of JUUL vs. Other E-Cigarette Brands among U.S. E-Cigarette Users: Evidence from Wave 5 of the PATH Study]=== | ||
*A re-analysis of the data by Foxon & Shiffman (2) revealed that those analyses did not include replicate weights as specified in guidance from the PATH study team. Foxon & Shiffman (2) show that when the above analyses are performed with the replicate weights included, the associations above are statistically non-significant. (Foxon, Shiffman) | *A re-analysis of the data by Foxon & Shiffman (2) revealed that those analyses did not include replicate weights as specified in guidance from the PATH study team. Foxon & Shiffman (2) show that when the above analyses are performed with the replicate weights included, the associations above are statistically non-significant. (Foxon, Shiffman) | ||
*(2) [https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/18/6715 Full Comment] | |||
**Referring to: Wang Y, Duan Z, Weaver SR, Popova L, Spears CA, Ashley DL, Pechacek TF, Eriksen MP, Huang J. Consumption of JUUL vs. Other E-Cigarette Brands among U.S. E-Cigarette Users: Evidence from Wave 5 of the PATH Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(17):10837. [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710837 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710837] | **Referring to: Wang Y, Duan Z, Weaver SR, Popova L, Spears CA, Ashley DL, Pechacek TF, Eriksen MP, Huang J. Consumption of JUUL vs. Other E-Cigarette Brands among U.S. E-Cigarette Users: Evidence from Wave 5 of the PATH Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(17):10837. [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710837 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710837] | ||
edits