Talk:Health effects of electronic cigarettes: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:59, 16 January 2023 editSmokeyJoe (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,253 edits →Cut “summary of safety concerns”: reason← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:14, 30 July 2024 edit undoRrmisra (talk \| contribs)57 edits →Proposed Editing Plan: new sectionTag: New topic
(30 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Old AfD multi \|date=27 December 2022 \|result='''keep''' \|page=Health effects of electronic cigarettes}}		{{Old AfD multi \|date=27 December 2022 \|result='''keep''' \|page=Health effects of electronic cigarettes}}
	{{Old prod\|nom=S Marshall\|nomdate=2022-12-26}}		{{Old prod\|nom=S Marshall\|nomdate=2022-12-26}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Medicine~~\|class=~~start~~\|~~importance=mid}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|
			{{WikiProject Medicine\|importance=mid}}
			}}
	{{Copied\|from=Safety of electronic cigarettes\|to=Nicotine}}		{{Copied\|from=Safety of electronic cigarettes\|to=Nicotine}}
	{{Copied\|from=Safety of electronic cigarettes\|to=Nicotine poisoning}}		{{Copied\|from=Safety of electronic cigarettes\|to=Nicotine poisoning}}
	{{Copied\|from=Safety of electronic cigarettes\|to=2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak}}		{{Copied\|from=Safety of electronic cigarettes\|to=2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak}}
	{{Ds/talk notice\|topic=ecig}}

	{{annual readership}}		{{annual readership}}
	{{Archives}}		{{Archives}}

	==Wiki Education ~~Foundation-supported~~ ~~course~~ ~~assignment~~==		==Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II==
			{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/UCSF/Foundations_II_(Summer_2024) \| assignments = ], ], ], ] \| reviewers = ], ], ], ] \| start_date = 2024-06-01 \| end_date = 2024-08-17 }}
	] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-01-25">25 January 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-05-08">8 May 2020</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ].

	{{small\|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 03:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)}}

	==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
	] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-08-30">30 August 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-09-21">21 September 2021</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ].

	{{small\|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 03:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)}}

	== Merge from ] ==

	The concerns of multiple editors at ] have not been addressed. There is a lot of overlap between the two articles, especially on nicotine and aerosol, which are outside of the "Adverse effects" section of the safety article. If the current length of both articles is to be maintained, they should be split along a more logical dividing line. But I agree with the editors who commented that both articles currently contain an excessive amount of detail, and if trimmed to an appropriate length would be short enough to merge. -- ] (]) 19:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
	:I disagree with the recent mass content deletion. Each article is too long to merge together. The article was expanded and it was reverted more than once and a new article was created to retain the content. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_4#Article_length ] (]) 20:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
	::What "mass content deletion" are you referring to? -- ] (]) 23:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::I meant to say I previously disagreed with the . The only way I could gain consensus for adding the content was to create a subarticle. Others convinced me the article was too long for the content here. ] (]) 23:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::Well, there are four editors (including me) who seem to think that the way article content is currently divided is undesirable. The two remedies proposed so far are rearranging into a different set of subarticles to clarify scope and provide better non-overlapping summaries in the parent article, or to trim down content so it fits in one article. -- ] (]) 00:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::::All the content that was recently trimmed or deleted from this article is enough content to start a separate article. ] (]) 13:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

	== Excessive detail on 95% controversy ==

			<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 19:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)</span>
	In the "Positives" section, I dropped some details about the controversy over the claim "vaping is at least 95% less harmful than smoking". (QuackGuru reverted this change.) I think it is enough to say that the group that released the claim were criticized for "having financial ties to the tobacco industry", as I wrote. It is not interesting to the vast majority of readers of this article which people in that group got money from where, or which journals published an infographic explaining the connections. This information should not be in the prose of the article; interested readers should be able to click through to investigative reports and see that it's reputable journals like ''The Lancet'' and ''BMJ'' through the footnotes. This excessive detail also gives undue weight to this controversy. There are several other statistics about the estimated relative safety reported in the article, which are not described as disputed, which should get about the same amount of coverage. Readers should be able to judge the reliability of each by how Misplaced Pages characterizes it (or if they care, chasing down original sources through footnotes) and not based on how much prose is devoted to disputing the number. -- ] (]) 00:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
	:QuackGuru has been blocked; I've restored the change. -- ] (]) 07:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
	::Sourced content was replaced with unsourced content. See "Tobacco manufactures vigorously promote the use of alternatives to traditional cigarettes with supposedly safer ], such as e-cigarettes, as a way to lower the harms of tobacco." This was sourced and it was removed. It was replaced with "Electronic cigarettes have been proposed as a healthier alternative for people who otherwise cannot or choose not to quit smoking, even if complete abstinence from inhaled nicotine products is healthiest." that is unsourced. ] (]) 01:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

			== Peer reviews from Group Heat Exhaustion ==
	== Content issues ==

			· ] (]) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
	{{reply\|QuackGuru}} With due respect to your concerns, during ], a major theme in the complaints was "ownership" over articles, expressed as reverting or discussing a large number of changes made by other editors, starting what the administrators felt was an overly large number of discussions, and alienating other editors with continual arguing. Would it be possible to pick maybe the most important of the below topics on which to continue discussion, and accept the rest as the work of other editors to improve the article? -- ] (]) 06:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Sure, I will allow you to pick any that you think is of concern or you can close the discussion if you think there is no serious concern. No editor is required to response. Would it help if I don't edit this article for 6 months or a year? ] (]) 14:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
	::Editors are obliged to reply if they do not want the proposed changes to happen. Otherwise, if you later implement the changes, you can rightfully say that no one objected when you proposed them on the talk page. The concerns raised in the enforcement discussion are not confined to a single article, and were not merely about editing, but how you conducted yourself in talk page discussions. Going away for 6-12 months and then coming back and engaging in the same behaviors would not solve the underlying problem, any more than going away for 3 months and returning did. What would be helpful is heeding the substance of the complaints, including accepting legitimate contributions from other editors without arguing. Corrections and discussions about potential factual errors, bias, and sourcing problems are welcome, but only if they are well grounded. What is not welcome and what exhausts and alienates editors are comments apparently geared toward producing a specific outcome rather than addressing heartfelt concerns, for example by ignoring conversational context if inconvenient to the argument, making arguments that contradict one's own previous arguments, or claiming that text violates lots of different policies even if it obviously doesn't or one has to squint sideways to shoehorn the situation into being a policy violation. For now, I'll reply to two of the threads below where there's text that I think needs changing. In the coming days there will be a lot more trimming and consolidating to respond to complaints that articles like this one are almost unreadably verbose, and I hope it will be a constructive and cooperative process. -- ] (]) 18:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::I replied to the "Lede" threads below; the other was deleted in . The claim that an article was retracted was correct, however the citation was to a different article. I ended up removing the whole sentence, since there are other, non-retracted articles which cover the same subject matter, and the fact of the retraction did not seem important to the article. -- ] (]) 01:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

			'''1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Misplaced Pages peer review "Guiding framework"? '''
	=== Lede ===

			Per the Misplaced Pages peer review guiding framework, the group's edits substantially improve the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes". The following changes have been noted:
	Please see . There is promotional disputed language such as "In the United Kingdom, the Royal College of Physicians states that "The hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco."" and "This estimate of 5% risk was recently affirmed in a 2018 review." The body contains content that disputes the 5% risk claim. See .

			# Lead Section:
	See "The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine of the United States argue that e-cigarettes are not without risk, but compared to combustible tobacco cigarettes, they contain fewer toxicants." It is not needed to state "The National they contain fewer toxicants.Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine of the United States argue...". This weakens the claim or is too wordy. The part "...but compared to combustible tobacco cigarettes, they contain fewer toxicants." is repetitive. See later in the lede: "The majority of toxic chemicals found in cigarette smoke are absent in e-cigarette vapor. E-cigarette vapor contains lower concentrations of potentially toxic chemicals than with cigarette smoke." The previous wording was "However, e-cigarette use with or without nicotine cannot be considered harmless."
			##The previous lead was brief and lacked detail about the major sections of the article.
			##The revised lead has been significantly expanded, providing a more comprehensive overview of the article's contents.
			#Content:
			##New, relevant, and up-to-date information has been added, addressing recent studies and findings.
			##Some specific additions include:
			###Expanded section on cardiovascular effects, citing a 2023 study linking e-cigarette use to increased blood pressure and arterial stiffness.
			###New subsection on demographic impacts, particularly focusing on youth and pregnant women.
			###Expanded section on respiratory health, citing a 2024 study showing a correlation between e-cigarette use and chronic bronchitis symptoms in long-term users.
			##These additions ensure the article remains current and addresses Misplaced Pages's equity gaps by highlighting effects on historically underrepresented populations (i.e., women and children)
			#Tone and Balance:
			##The edits maintain a neutral tone throughout, presenting information with minimal bias.
			##Balanced representation of different viewpoints, including perspectives from both proponents and critics of e-cigarettes. For instance, the potential benefits of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation tools are discussed alongside health risks.
			#Sources and References:
			##New content is backed by reliable, recent secondary sources from peer-reviewed journals.
			##Citations accurately reflect the information presented and cover a wide spectrum of available literature.
			##Notable new sources include a 2023 article from the Journal of the American Heart Association and a 2024 review in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
			#Organization:
			##The article's structure has been enhanced with clear, concise, and easy-to-read content.
			##New content is well-organized into logical sections such as cardiovascular effects, respiratory health, and demographic impacts.
			##Minor grammatical errors were corrected and sentence structure improved for clarity.
			#Images and Media:
			##While no new images were added, existing visuals are well-captioned and adhere to Misplaced Pages's copyright regulations.
			##Image captions were updated to be more descriptive, enhancing readers' understanding.
			#Overall Impressions:
			##The edits have significantly improved the article's comprehensiveness, balance, and readability.
			##The content is now more complete, with thorough sourcing and a well-structured layout.
			##The strengths of the added content include its relevance, neutrality, and up-to-date research findings.

			'''2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? '''
	See "The relationship of between vaping and conventional smoking is an area of active study and debate, including the relative health risk, whether electronic cigarettes should be promoted to people who cannot or who would otherwise choose to quit smoking, and whether or not the availability of electronic cigarettes is recruiting more people into nicotine addiction than if they were not available." This content in the lede is unsourced. The previous lede only contained sourced content. I don't think it was an improvement to replace sourced content with unsourced content in the lede.

			The group has largely achieved its overall goals for improving the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes," with several specific accomplishments aligning with their stated objectives.
	See "The safety of electronic cigarettes is uncertain." This sentence was the first sentence in the lede. It is no longer in the lede. I propose starting with removing the unsourced content from the lede. ] (]) 01:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
	:I have rewritten the lede for brevity in order to clear the "lede too long" cleanup tag, and dropped or reworded most of this text. My interpretation of ] and practice for many years (other than for biographies and direct quotes) is not to bother putting or requesting inline citations in the article intro as long as the claims made there are a fair summary of claims made in the body of the article that ''do'' have inline citations. As that guideline says, inline citations in the intro are more important for claims likely to be challenged. If you think any of the claims made there are on controversial or hotly debated issues, feel free to add footnote links to some or all of the inline body citations from the appropriate part of the intro. (I've retained the existing inline citations in the intro where they still apply.) If the new text is any way an inaccurate or unfair summary of the body, of course that should be fixed as well. But I'd prefer to move forward and improve the new version rather than simply flipping back to a more verbose version of the intro just because it came with inline citations, because that will not solve the "lede too long" problem. -- ] (]) 01:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

			#Introduction of Electronic Cigarettes:
	=== Images ===
			##Achieved: The lead now includes a more comprehensive overview of electronic cigarettes, including sections on alternatives to smoking and their effects on increasing nicotine products and smoking cessation. These additions provide a thorough background and context for the rest of the article.
			#Add to Other Effects:
			##Partially Achieved: The group successfully added content on the impact of e-cigarettes on the gastrointestinal (GI) system, dermatological manifestations, renal, and hepatic effects. These additions enhance the "Other Effects" section by broadening the scope of health impacts covered. However, more detailed information and specific studies could further strengthen these sections.
			#Update Repetitive Paragraphs & Out-of-date Research:
			##Achieved: The group revised several sections to remove repetitive content and update out-of-date research. The "Adverse Effects" section, including battery-related malfunctions, was updated to reflect more current findings and provide clearer information. These revisions improve the clarity and accuracy of the article.
			#Adverse Effects and Related Sections:
			##Achieved: The sections on adverse effects, reported deaths, direct exposure, and respiratory effects (EVALI) have been updated. The revisions include recent research and detailed findings on these topics, providing a more comprehensive and up-to-date overview. The gallery section remains unchanged, which might be an area for future improvement.
			#Regulation, Toxicology, Public Perceptions:
			##Partially Achieved: The "Regulation" section has seen some updates, but it could benefit from more detailed information on specific regulations and their impacts across different regions. The sections on toxicology and public perceptions have been tentatively addressed but could be further expanded with more detailed and current content.
			#Current References and Updated Pictures:
			##Partially Achieved: The group has added more current references throughout the article, citing recent studies and reliable sources. This enhances the credibility and relevance of the information presented. However, there were no significant updates to pictures, which could be an area for further enhancement.

			The group has successfully achieved most of its goals for improving the article. Some areas, such as more detailed regulatory information and expanded sections on toxicology and public perceptions, could be further developed to fully meet all their objectives.
	A few images have been deleted from the article such as . I think they added value to the article. ] (]) 01:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

			'''3. Does the article meet Misplaced Pages guidelines?'''
	=== Unknowns ===

			''A. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? ''
	A lot of the seemed to have be expunged. The known unknowns are notable. See ] ] (]) 01:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

			The draft submission of the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes" largely reflects a neutral point of view, aligning well with Misplaced Pages's standards for neutrality. The revisions include balanced coverage of both the potential benefits and risks associated with e-cigarettes. For instance, the article presents data on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation tools alongside evidence of their adverse health effects, such as cardiovascular and respiratory issues. This balanced approach ensures that the article does not disproportionately favor one perspective over another.
	=== Content deleted ===

			The new content is supported by a range of reliable sources, including recent peer-reviewed studies and authoritative reviews, which helps to maintain neutrality by representing a broad spectrum of expert opinions. Additionally, the article avoids sensational language and unsubstantiated claims, focusing instead on well-supported scientific findings and documented evidence. The sections on regulatory aspects and public perceptions provide a diverse range of viewpoints, reflecting the complexity of the topic without promoting any particular agenda. ] (]) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
	A lot of relevant on-topic content was deleted from the article. For example, see "Reviews on the safety of electronic cigarettes, evaluating roughly the same studies, have reached significantly different conclusions. Broad-ranging statements regarding their safety cannot be reached because of the vast differences of devices and e-liquids available. A consensus has not been established for the effects as well as the benefits related to their use. Due to various methodological issues, severe conflicts of interest, and inconsistent research, no definite conclusions can be determined regarding the safety of e-cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes cannot be regarded as a harmless alternative to traditional cigarettes." These are not redundant claims. ] (]) 13:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

			'''· ] (]) 22:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)'''
	=== Environmental Impact section ===

			'''1.''' Yes, the group’s edits substantially improve the article. The introductory paragraph summarizes the topics in the article and gives a brief description of what electronic cigarettes are. The content added are up-to-date and written from a neutral standpoint. It explores both the advantages and disadvantages of electronic cigarettes throughout the years. Overall, the article provides valuable information and covers multiple perspectives.
	Before it was removed from this article it was trimmed and . Consensus was against keeping the Environmental Impact section in the electronic cigarette article. See ]. Consensus was also against removing it from this article. See ]. ] (]) 13:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

			'''2.''' The group achieved its overall goals for improvement. I also enjoyed the addition of images and charts throughout the article. The title is short and simple, and the introductory lead is direct and easy to read. The quotations are cited to their original source, and there are links to other Misplaced Pages articles for definitions, making the content more accessible to a wider audience.
	== Spacing after ref tags ==

			'''3b.''' The claims in the article are verifiable with cited sources freely available, such as information from the CDC, World Health Organization, and articles from PubMed.
	{{ping\|QuackGuru}} FYI regarding , I put line breaks after closing "ref" tags in order to make it easier to distinguish between the guts of footnotes and the main prose in the article. With many, multi-line citations, it's very difficult for me to find the beginnings and ends of main body text if the wikitext paragraphs are essentially on one massive self-wrapping line. -- ] (]) 02:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
			] (]) 22:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

			· Jaryn copies and answers Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3c ] (]) 06:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC) --] (]) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
	== QuackGuru ==

			1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Misplaced Pages peer review “Guiding framework”?
	For the record, QuackGuru has been ], so that renders moot a bunch of discussions above. -- ] (]) 02:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
			The information added and the edits submitted do substantially improve the article as the background information is built upon, and the topic at hand is thoroughly addressed. However, while the information added does add value to their page overall, I will say that because the page title is specifically "HEALTH EFFECTS of electronic cigarettes", I would expect to see more dense emphasis on the health effects rather than the debate of what they are used for/smoking cessation/regulations/their malfunctions. I would have expected to see specific headings for the different health effects (instead of just an "other" section), than informational paragraphs describing the pathophysiology behind those health effects/treatment/rates/etc. The information is great, just maybe the organization is off and should have the health effects as the main headings or headings at least. Throughout, a non-bias standpoint was kept!

			2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
	== Low quality of contributions makes this article worthless propaganda ==
			The introduction gives a thorough yet concise overview on both the pros and cons of e-cigarettes. The introduction first provides background information on what e-cigarettes are as well as the debates behind them, then later moves into the varying health effects along with their own descriptions. Overall, the introduction gives a great description of what's to be expanded on in the later parts of the wikipedia page.
			The "other effects" section I think should be expanded upon (I believe it is not yet complete?) to better reflect the other organs/body systems effected, especially since the article is titled with "health effects". I believe the users are still working on adding more information for the hepatic, renal, and nervous systems.
			Signs of repetition or outdated information has been eliminated.
			The public perceptions, regulations, and toxicology subjects are definitely touched upon in depth! This information provides great background detail.
			Overall, goals were achieved, or seem to be in the process of being achieved!

			3c. Does the article meet Misplaced Pages guidelines? Are the edits formatted consistent with Misplaced Pages’s manual of style?
	The sources quoted are from the public health industry who receive huge amounts of funding from tobacco taxation and justify their funding by hyping public health fears. The sources are in turn used without context, a reference to carcinogens being present at levels 1000 lower than tobacco smoke becomes a simple statement that vaping fluid contains carcinogens in the article. So much of the article is vague, including the definition of vaping itself. The section on Suction reads like parody. The section on battery risk is excessively long, any number of consumer products from handsfree sets to pulse monitors have the same inherent issue. The genuine health risks posited are repeated ad nauseam even though they are inconclusive. The actually risk of second hand nicotine poisoning is obviously negligible, as it is for smoking, yet it extensively discussed in the article. The section on third hand risk, which is actually second hand, is farcical. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			Yes, the edits are consistent with Misplaced Pages's manual of style. Headings are clear, and information is well-organized throughout. Only critique would be possibly having more clear headings for the different health effects. For example, they touch on dermatological effects, but it did not have its own section/subheading to click through on the left, so it was a bit easy to miss if one were trying to skim through for information on a specific health effect. The "other effects" section I felt could also have their own "clickable" sections on the left and be more of a highlight of the article. ] (]) 06:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC) --] (]) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

			· Sebastian copies and answers Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3d. --] (]) 06:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
	== Article reads like it was written by someone who doesn't fully understand English ==

			Sebastian Lowe's Peer Review Questions: 1, 2, and 3D 7/29/2024
	Seriously it needs a major copy edit <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			Q1: The group’s edits did in fact substantially improve the article. Prior to the edits, a lot of the information was either left as unclear or not well referenced. The group had a clear framework and idea for where and how they wanted to improve the article, and they found reliable sources to do so. Furthermore, using their background knowledge and thinking more like medical professionals, they provided lots of information that read similar to that of a drug. Some examples include pregnancy/lactation impact, adverse events/reactions, toxicology, regulation, and more. Overall, I feel like the content they added did apply to the topic, and it improved the article overall.
	== This page really does need an overhaul ==

			Q2: I believe that the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. They set out to discuss and provide more information on e-cigarettes from a medical standpoint. Using their experiences and knowledge as a pharmacist, they delved deeper into topics such as adverse reactions or events, they discussed how it impacts multiple organ systems, and they mentioned why individuals would even consider e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation option along with the benefits they pose.
	Even leaving the factual basis and improper elevation/devaluation of claims aside that make up most of this article, it reads like a cluster-bomb of random factoids without any order or structure without going into any detail about any particular claim. Makes it come off like I'm reading a weird collaborative op-ed where every author is only allowed one short sentence. ] (]) 23:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

			Q3D: The edits do reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion as they not only discuss the effects of e-cigarettes on multiple ethnic groups using data from several reliable articles, but also how they impact other special populations such as those who are pregnant or lactating. They also discuss how the general public views e-cigarettes and the core issue which is the lack of awareness of the harm that these devices pose on the masses. What I really liked was how they also briefly discussed ways to tackle this issue such as advertisements to make the harm of e-cigarettes more known to the general public.
	:I began. It seems as though someone has tried to include every possible reference. There’s an awful lot of words that are non-information. Empty wordiness, or statements of lack of knowledge, or of possibility. ] (]) 11:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

			Overall: Going through the peer review checklist, there is a lot of content in the article and for good reason considering the topic, but I really appreciated how all of you organized the content so nicely, and it all was relevant to the article topic. In terms of bias, this topic is a really hard situation to remain neutral about, but I think you all did a good job weighing out the pros and cons such as in your smoking cessation section of your article. I loved the articles and images you all provided and the references used to support the information that you added to this topic. The articles and citations provided were up to date, they worked, and the sources did support the claims in the article. If there was one thing I might consider adding to the article, it would be a bit more information on what is an e-cigarette, what sort of variations it has out on the market, and its mechanism on how it works and what makes it harmful to carry or breathe in. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== Cut “summary of safety concerns” ==

			== Proposed Editing Plan ==
	I have cut the entire section “Summary of safety concerns” (and copied it below) on the basis that it reads like WP:Original research, and it not grounded in the single source. It reads like textbook advocacy. Even if improved with more content and better sources, I don’t think it would ever be good content. —] (]) 07:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
	{{hat\|reason=Section “Summary of safety concerns” cut from the article.}}
	'''Summary of safety concerns'''
	{{cleanup\|reason=Issues listed in table are already covered in other sections; arguments expressed here should be merged into prose sections.\|date=February 2020}}
	{\| class="wikitable"
	\|+ '''Ethical considerations surrounding the availability and use of e-cigarettes'''<ref name=Franck-Filion2016/>
	\|-
	! style="font-weight: bold;" \| Safety consideration
	! style="font-weight: bold;" \| Supporting arguments
	! style="font-weight: bold;" \| Opposing arguments

			'''Proposed Editing Plan''' - Add Introduction of Electronic Cigarettes: History, Composition - Add to Other Effects: Impact on GI, dermatological manifestations (integumentary system), renal, hepatic - Cut out repetitive paragraphs (revise Battery Adverse Effects, delete Suction, delete Adolescents, delete Methodological issue) - Add more current references - Change pictures - Update current guidelines/sources (Regulations, EVALI) ] (]) 19:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
	\|-
	\| colspan="3" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;" \| Tobacco harm reduction
	\|-
	\| Potential for smoking cessation
	\| E-cigarettes may be as effective as the nicotine patch.
	\| Inconclusive evidence of efficacy for smoking cessation.
	\|-
	\| Potential for smoking reduction
	\| Demonstrated in multiple studies.
	\| Unlikely that cigarette reduction results in significant health benefits.
	\|-
	\| colspan="3" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;" \| Product safety
	\|-
	\| Potential for long-term adverse effects
	\| Unknown impact of long-term propylene glycol inhalation.
	\| No documented serious adverse events to date.
	\|-
	\|
	\| Propylene glycol inhalation causes short-term respiratory irritation.
	\|
	\|-
	\| Autonomy to use a product of unknown risk
	\| Ethical imperative given informed consent.
	\| Public health concerns trump individual rights.
	\|-
	\| colspan="3" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;" \| Use among non-smokers
	\|-
	\| Potential to lead to nicotine addiction
	\| Perceived harmlessness may lead never smokers to initiate e-cigarettes.
	\| No evidence for increased nicotine addiction to cause net public health harms.
	\|-
	\| Potential gateway effect
	\| Nicotine acts as a priming agent for the brain.
	\| Unclear implications for transitioning to tobacco cigarettes.
	\|-
	\| colspan="3" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;" \| Use among youth
	\|-
	\| Potential to lead to nicotine addiction
	\| Minors require protection.
	\| No evidence of increased nicotine addiction causing net public health harms.
	\|-
	\|
	\| E-liquid flavorings are attractive to youth.
	\|
	\|-
	\| Potential gateway effect
	\| Nicotine is a priming agent for the brain.
	\| Unclear implications for transitioning to tobacco cigarettes.
	\|-
	\| Nicotine poisoning among children
	\| Increased calls to poison control centers.
	\| None.
	\|-
	\|
	\| E-liquid flavors are appealing to youth.
	\|
	\|-
	\| colspan="3" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;" \| Use in public places
	\|-
	\| Potential for passive vaping
	\| Stem cell cytotoxicity.
	\| Limited evidence that passive vaping poses significant health concerns.
	\|-
	\|
	\| Aerosolized nicotine emissions.
	\|
	\|-
	\| colspan="3" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;" \| Renormalized smoking culture
	\|-
	\| Potential to subvert decades of anti-smoking efforts
	\| Increased acceptability of smoke-like vapor and smoking behavior.
	\| No evidence that e-cigarettes would be conflated with tobacco cigarettes.
	\|}
	{{reftalk}}
	{{hab}} ] (]) 07:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:14, 30 July 2024

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by S Marshall (talk · contribs) on 26 December 2022.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Safety of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into Nicotine. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from Safety of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into Nicotine poisoning. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from Safety of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into 2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rrmisra, JMonka, Dmirandajuarez, LNariyoshi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: FionaMai, Selowe, A.MahmoudiWIKI, Jarynmiguel.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer reviews from Group Heat Exhaustion

· A.MahmoudiWIKI (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Misplaced Pages peer review "Guiding framework"?

Per the Misplaced Pages peer review guiding framework, the group's edits substantially improve the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes". The following changes have been noted:

Lead Section:
1. The previous lead was brief and lacked detail about the major sections of the article.
2. The revised lead has been significantly expanded, providing a more comprehensive overview of the article's contents.
Content:
1. New, relevant, and up-to-date information has been added, addressing recent studies and findings.
2. Some specific additions include:
  1. Expanded section on cardiovascular effects, citing a 2023 study linking e-cigarette use to increased blood pressure and arterial stiffness.
  2. New subsection on demographic impacts, particularly focusing on youth and pregnant women.
  3. Expanded section on respiratory health, citing a 2024 study showing a correlation between e-cigarette use and chronic bronchitis symptoms in long-term users.
3. These additions ensure the article remains current and addresses Misplaced Pages's equity gaps by highlighting effects on historically underrepresented populations (i.e., women and children)
Tone and Balance:
1. The edits maintain a neutral tone throughout, presenting information with minimal bias.
2. Balanced representation of different viewpoints, including perspectives from both proponents and critics of e-cigarettes. For instance, the potential benefits of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation tools are discussed alongside health risks.
Sources and References:
1. New content is backed by reliable, recent secondary sources from peer-reviewed journals.
2. Citations accurately reflect the information presented and cover a wide spectrum of available literature.
3. Notable new sources include a 2023 article from the Journal of the American Heart Association and a 2024 review in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
Organization:
1. The article's structure has been enhanced with clear, concise, and easy-to-read content.
2. New content is well-organized into logical sections such as cardiovascular effects, respiratory health, and demographic impacts.
3. Minor grammatical errors were corrected and sentence structure improved for clarity.
Images and Media:
1. While no new images were added, existing visuals are well-captioned and adhere to Misplaced Pages's copyright regulations.
2. Image captions were updated to be more descriptive, enhancing readers' understanding.
Overall Impressions:
1. The edits have significantly improved the article's comprehensiveness, balance, and readability.
2. The content is now more complete, with thorough sourcing and a well-structured layout.
3. The strengths of the added content include its relevance, neutrality, and up-to-date research findings.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group has largely achieved its overall goals for improving the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes," with several specific accomplishments aligning with their stated objectives.

Introduction of Electronic Cigarettes:
1. Achieved: The lead now includes a more comprehensive overview of electronic cigarettes, including sections on alternatives to smoking and their effects on increasing nicotine products and smoking cessation. These additions provide a thorough background and context for the rest of the article.
Add to Other Effects:
1. Partially Achieved: The group successfully added content on the impact of e-cigarettes on the gastrointestinal (GI) system, dermatological manifestations, renal, and hepatic effects. These additions enhance the "Other Effects" section by broadening the scope of health impacts covered. However, more detailed information and specific studies could further strengthen these sections.
Update Repetitive Paragraphs & Out-of-date Research:
1. Achieved: The group revised several sections to remove repetitive content and update out-of-date research. The "Adverse Effects" section, including battery-related malfunctions, was updated to reflect more current findings and provide clearer information. These revisions improve the clarity and accuracy of the article.
Adverse Effects and Related Sections:
1. Achieved: The sections on adverse effects, reported deaths, direct exposure, and respiratory effects (EVALI) have been updated. The revisions include recent research and detailed findings on these topics, providing a more comprehensive and up-to-date overview. The gallery section remains unchanged, which might be an area for future improvement.
Regulation, Toxicology, Public Perceptions:
1. Partially Achieved: The "Regulation" section has seen some updates, but it could benefit from more detailed information on specific regulations and their impacts across different regions. The sections on toxicology and public perceptions have been tentatively addressed but could be further expanded with more detailed and current content.
Current References and Updated Pictures:
1. Partially Achieved: The group has added more current references throughout the article, citing recent studies and reliable sources. This enhances the credibility and relevance of the information presented. However, there were no significant updates to pictures, which could be an area for further enhancement.

The group has successfully achieved most of its goals for improving the article. Some areas, such as more detailed regulatory information and expanded sections on toxicology and public perceptions, could be further developed to fully meet all their objectives.

3. Does the article meet Misplaced Pages guidelines?

A. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The draft submission of the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes" largely reflects a neutral point of view, aligning well with Misplaced Pages's standards for neutrality. The revisions include balanced coverage of both the potential benefits and risks associated with e-cigarettes. For instance, the article presents data on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation tools alongside evidence of their adverse health effects, such as cardiovascular and respiratory issues. This balanced approach ensures that the article does not disproportionately favor one perspective over another.

The new content is supported by a range of reliable sources, including recent peer-reviewed studies and authoritative reviews, which helps to maintain neutrality by representing a broad spectrum of expert opinions. Additionally, the article avoids sensational language and unsubstantiated claims, focusing instead on well-supported scientific findings and documented evidence. The sections on regulatory aspects and public perceptions provide a diverse range of viewpoints, reflecting the complexity of the topic without promoting any particular agenda. A.MahmoudiWIKI (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

· FionaMai (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes, the group’s edits substantially improve the article. The introductory paragraph summarizes the topics in the article and gives a brief description of what electronic cigarettes are. The content added are up-to-date and written from a neutral standpoint. It explores both the advantages and disadvantages of electronic cigarettes throughout the years. Overall, the article provides valuable information and covers multiple perspectives.

2. The group achieved its overall goals for improvement. I also enjoyed the addition of images and charts throughout the article. The title is short and simple, and the introductory lead is direct and easy to read. The quotations are cited to their original source, and there are links to other Misplaced Pages articles for definitions, making the content more accessible to a wider audience.

3b. The claims in the article are verifiable with cited sources freely available, such as information from the CDC, World Health Organization, and articles from PubMed. FionaMai (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

· Jaryn copies and answers Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3c Jarynmiguel (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC) --Jarynmiguel (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Misplaced Pages peer review “Guiding framework”? The information added and the edits submitted do substantially improve the article as the background information is built upon, and the topic at hand is thoroughly addressed. However, while the information added does add value to their page overall, I will say that because the page title is specifically "HEALTH EFFECTS of electronic cigarettes", I would expect to see more dense emphasis on the health effects rather than the debate of what they are used for/smoking cessation/regulations/their malfunctions. I would have expected to see specific headings for the different health effects (instead of just an "other" section), than informational paragraphs describing the pathophysiology behind those health effects/treatment/rates/etc. The information is great, just maybe the organization is off and should have the health effects as the main headings or headings at least. Throughout, a non-bias standpoint was kept!

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The introduction gives a thorough yet concise overview on both the pros and cons of e-cigarettes. The introduction first provides background information on what e-cigarettes are as well as the debates behind them, then later moves into the varying health effects along with their own descriptions. Overall, the introduction gives a great description of what's to be expanded on in the later parts of the wikipedia page. The "other effects" section I think should be expanded upon (I believe it is not yet complete?) to better reflect the other organs/body systems effected, especially since the article is titled with "health effects". I believe the users are still working on adding more information for the hepatic, renal, and nervous systems. Signs of repetition or outdated information has been eliminated. The public perceptions, regulations, and toxicology subjects are definitely touched upon in depth! This information provides great background detail. Overall, goals were achieved, or seem to be in the process of being achieved!

3c. Does the article meet Misplaced Pages guidelines? Are the edits formatted consistent with Misplaced Pages’s manual of style? Yes, the edits are consistent with Misplaced Pages's manual of style. Headings are clear, and information is well-organized throughout. Only critique would be possibly having more clear headings for the different health effects. For example, they touch on dermatological effects, but it did not have its own section/subheading to click through on the left, so it was a bit easy to miss if one were trying to skim through for information on a specific health effect. The "other effects" section I felt could also have their own "clickable" sections on the left and be more of a highlight of the article. Jarynmiguel (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC) --Jarynmiguel (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

· Sebastian copies and answers Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3d. --Selowe (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Sebastian Lowe's Peer Review Questions: 1, 2, and 3D 7/29/2024

Q1: The group’s edits did in fact substantially improve the article. Prior to the edits, a lot of the information was either left as unclear or not well referenced. The group had a clear framework and idea for where and how they wanted to improve the article, and they found reliable sources to do so. Furthermore, using their background knowledge and thinking more like medical professionals, they provided lots of information that read similar to that of a drug. Some examples include pregnancy/lactation impact, adverse events/reactions, toxicology, regulation, and more. Overall, I feel like the content they added did apply to the topic, and it improved the article overall.

Q2: I believe that the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. They set out to discuss and provide more information on e-cigarettes from a medical standpoint. Using their experiences and knowledge as a pharmacist, they delved deeper into topics such as adverse reactions or events, they discussed how it impacts multiple organ systems, and they mentioned why individuals would even consider e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation option along with the benefits they pose.

Q3D: The edits do reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion as they not only discuss the effects of e-cigarettes on multiple ethnic groups using data from several reliable articles, but also how they impact other special populations such as those who are pregnant or lactating. They also discuss how the general public views e-cigarettes and the core issue which is the lack of awareness of the harm that these devices pose on the masses. What I really liked was how they also briefly discussed ways to tackle this issue such as advertisements to make the harm of e-cigarettes more known to the general public.

Overall: Going through the peer review checklist, there is a lot of content in the article and for good reason considering the topic, but I really appreciated how all of you organized the content so nicely, and it all was relevant to the article topic. In terms of bias, this topic is a really hard situation to remain neutral about, but I think you all did a good job weighing out the pros and cons such as in your smoking cessation section of your article. I loved the articles and images you all provided and the references used to support the information that you added to this topic. The articles and citations provided were up to date, they worked, and the sources did support the claims in the article. If there was one thing I might consider adding to the article, it would be a bit more information on what is an e-cigarette, what sort of variations it has out on the market, and its mechanism on how it works and what makes it harmful to carry or breathe in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Editing Plan

Proposed Editing Plan - Add Introduction of Electronic Cigarettes: History, Composition - Add to Other Effects: Impact on GI, dermatological manifestations (integumentary system), renal, hepatic - Cut out repetitive paragraphs (revise Battery Adverse Effects, delete Suction, delete Adolescents, delete Methodological issue) - Add more current references - Change pictures - Update current guidelines/sources (Regulations, EVALI) Rrmisra (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: