| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
*Conclusion: "Our critical appraisal reveals common, preventable flaws, the identification of which may provide guidance to researchers, reviewers, scientific editor, journalists, and policy makers. One striking result of the review is that a large portion of the high-ranking papers came out of US-dominated research institutions whose funders are unsupportive of a tobacco harm reduction agenda..." | *Conclusion: "Our critical appraisal reveals common, preventable flaws, the identification of which may provide guidance to researchers, reviewers, scientific editor, journalists, and policy makers. One striking result of the review is that a large portion of the high-ranking papers came out of US-dominated research institutions whose funders are unsupportive of a tobacco harm reduction agenda..." | ||
*Citation: Hajat C, Stein E, Selya A, Polosa R; CoEHAR study group. Analysis of common methodological flaws in the highest cited e-cigarette epidemiology research. Intern Emerg Med. 2022 Apr;17(3):887-909. doi: 10.1007/s11739-022-02967-1. Epub 2022 Mar 24. Erratum in: Intern Emerg Med. 2022 Aug;17(5):1561. PMID: 35325394; PMCID: PMC9018638. | *Citation: Hajat C, Stein E, Selya A, Polosa R; CoEHAR study group. Analysis of common methodological flaws in the highest cited e-cigarette epidemiology research. Intern Emerg Med. 2022 Apr;17(3):887-909. doi: 10.1007/s11739-022-02967-1. Epub 2022 Mar 24. Erratum in: Intern Emerg Med. 2022 Aug;17(5):1561. PMID: 35325394; PMCID: PMC9018638. | ||
===2022: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9506048/ A Critical Review of Recent Literature on Metal Contents in E-Cigarette Aerosol]=== | |||
*Abstract: "The inhalation of metallic compounds in e-cigarette (EC) aerosol emissions presents legitimate concerns of potential harms for users. We provide a critical review of laboratory studies published after 2017 on metal contents in EC aerosol, focusing on the consistency between their experimental design, real life device usage and appropriate evaluation of exposure risks. All experiments reporting levels above toxicological markers for some metals (e.g., nickel, lead, copper, manganese) exhibited the following experimental flaws: (i) high powered sub-ohm tank devices tested by means of puffing protocols whose airflows and puff volumes are conceived and appropriate for low powered devices; this testing necessarily involves overheating conditions that favor the production of toxicants and generate aerosols that are likely repellent to human users; (ii) miscalculation of exposure levels from experimental outcomes; (iii) pods and tank devices acquired months and years before the experiments, so that corrosion effects cannot be ruled out; (iv) failure to disclose important information on the characteristics of pods and tank devices, on the experimental methodology and on the resulting outcomes, thus hindering the interpretation of results and the possibility of replication" | |||
*Citation: Soulet S, Sussman RA. A Critical Review of Recent Literature on Metal Contents in E-Cigarette Aerosol. Toxics. 2022 Aug 29;10(9):510. doi: 10.3390/toxics10090510. PMID: 36136475; PMCID: PMC9506048. | |||
===2022: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9787926/ Critical Review of the Recent Literature on Organic Byproducts in E-Cigarette Aerosol Emissions]=== | |||
*Abstract: "We review the literature on laboratory studies quantifying the production of potentially toxic organic byproducts (carbonyls, carbon monoxide, free radicals and some nontargeted compounds) in e-cigarette (EC) aerosol emissions, focusing on the consistency between their experimental design and a realistic usage of the devices, as determined by the power ranges of an optimal regime fulfilling a thermodynamically efficient process of aerosol generation that avoids overheating and “dry puffs”. The majority of the reviewed studies failed in various degrees to comply with this consistency criterion or supplied insufficient information to verify it. Consequently, most of the experimental outcomes and risk assessments are either partially or totally unreliable and/or of various degrees of questionable relevance to end users. Studies testing the devices under reasonable approximation to realistic conditions detected levels of all organic byproducts that are either negligible or orders of magnitude lower than in tobacco smoke. Our review reinforces the pressing need to update and improve current laboratory standards by an appropriate selection of testing parameters and the logistical incorporation of end users in the experimental design." | |||
*Citation: Soulet S, Sussman RA. Critical Review of the Recent Literature on Organic Byproducts in E-Cigarette Aerosol Emissions. Toxics. 2022 Nov 22;10(12):714. doi: 10.3390/toxics10120714. PMID: 36548547; PMCID: PMC9787926. | |||
=Comments by Experts: Suggesting Corrections, Identifying Methodological Flaws, or Expressing the Need for Retractions= | =Comments by Experts: Suggesting Corrections, Identifying Methodological Flaws, or Expressing the Need for Retractions= | ||
edits