Nicotine - Retracted Studies, Papers, and Articles

Retractions

2022: Original: Association of Smoking and E-Cigarette in Chronic Liver Disease: An NHANES Study

• 2023: Retraction Notice to “Association of Smoking and E-Cigarette in Chronic Liver Disease: An NHANES Study”
  • Media - Filter: Journal Retracts Study That Linked Vaping to Liver Disease

2022: Original: Cancer Prevalence in E-Cigarette Users: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional NHANES Study

• 2022: Retraction Notice to “Cancer Prevalence in E-Cigarette Users: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional NHANES Study”
  • Media - Reason: A Medical Journal Retracts a 2022 Study That Linked Vaping to Cancer

2019: Original: Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction Among Adults in the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health

• 2020: Retraction to: Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction Among Adults in the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health
  • Media - USA Today: A study claimed vaping doubles risk for heart attacks. It's been retracted for being 'unreliable'

How Mistakes Can Happen

2022: Cross‑sectional e‑cigarette studies are unreliable without timing of exposure and disease diagnosis

• "Studies based on cross-sectional data with no information on age of e-cigarette initiation and age of diagnosis invariably overestimate associations by including cases that were diagnosed before e-cigarette exposure. Although the authors of those studies did not make causal claims in the reports, university media releases and subsequent media articles invariably misled the public to believe that e-cigarette use increases risk for diseases."
• Citation: Rodu B, Plurphanswat N. Cross-sectional e-cigarette studies are unreliable without timing of exposure and disease diagnosis. Intern Emerg Med. 2023 Jan;18(1):319-323. doi: 10.1007/s11739-022-03141-3. Epub 2022 Nov 25. PMID: 36434423.

2022: Analysis of common methodological flaws in the highest cited e-cigarette epidemiology research

• 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.

Suggestions to add to this page