↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

EffiCiency and Safety of an eLectronic cigAreTte (ECLAT) as Tobacco Cigarettes Substitute: A Prospective 12-Month Randomized Control Design Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
587 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
514 Mendeley
Title
EffiCiency and Safety of an eLectronic cigAreTte (ECLAT) as Tobacco Cigarettes Substitute: A Prospective 12-Month Randomized Control Design Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0066317
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pasquale Caponnetto, Davide Campagna, Fabio Cibella, Jaymin B. Morjaria, Massimo Caruso, Cristina Russo, Riccardo Polosa

Abstract

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are becoming increasingly popular with smokers worldwide. Users report buying them to help quit smoking, to reduce cigarette consumption, to relieve tobacco withdrawal symptoms, and to continue having a 'smoking' experience, but with reduced health risks. Research on e-cigarettes is urgently needed in order to ensure that the decisions of regulators, healthcare providers and consumers are based on science. Methods ECLAT is a prospective 12-month randomized, controlled trial that evaluates smoking reduction/abstinence in 300 smokers not intending to quit experimenting two different nicotine strengths of a popular e-cigarette model ('Categoria'; Arbi Group Srl, Italy) compared to its non-nicotine choice. GroupA (n = 100) received 7.2 mg nicotine cartridges for 12 weeks; GroupB (n = 100), a 6-week 7.2 mg nicotine cartridges followed by a further 6-week 5.4 mg nicotine cartridges; GroupC (n = 100) received no-nicotine cartridges for 12 weeks. The study consisted of nine visits during which cig/day use and exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) levels were measured. Smoking reduction and abstinence rates were calculated. Adverse events and product preferences were also reviewed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 178 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 514 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 497 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 93 18%
Researcher 64 12%
Student > Master 57 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 8%
Other 40 8%
Other 115 22%
Unknown 104 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 154 30%
Psychology 44 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 7%
Social Sciences 31 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 6%
Other 98 19%
Unknown 123 24%