Suppr超能文献

“吸电子烟”是一个具有误导性的术语:对其在学术文献中的使用情况的批判性综述。

'E-cigarette smoking' is a misleading term: a critical review of its use in academic literature.

作者信息

Adebisi Yusuff Adebayo, Jimoh Nafisat Dasola, Ngoma Chimwemwe

机构信息

College of Social Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

African Young Leaders for Global Health, Abuja, Nigeria.

出版信息

Intern Emerg Med. 2025 Jun 18. doi: 10.1007/s11739-025-04014-1.

Abstract

The terminology used to describe e-cigarette-related behaviours in academic literature is critical for accurate communication and interpretation. Despite fundamental differences between e-cigarette use (vaping) and tobacco smoking, terms such as "e-cigarette smoking" have been used to refer to vaping, potentially conflating the two behaviours. This study aims to assess the use of the term "e-cigarette smoking" and its variants in peer-reviewed literature and discuss the implications of their usage. A review of academic literature published between 2015 and 2024 was conducted using Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest databases. Searches included terms such as "e-cigarette smoking" and related variants, with database-specific filters applied to exclude irrelevant document types. A supplementary search in Google Scholar was performed to capture broader usage, including grey literature. The search identified 613 articles in Embase, 462 in Web of Science, 407 in ScienceDirect, 282 in Scopus and 121 in ProQuest, highlighting the widespread use of "e-cigarette smoking" and related terms. The Google Scholar search returned approximately 4680 results, reflecting the widespread and informal use of "e-cigarette smoking" across diverse publication types, including grey literature. The term has also appeared in highly cited and recent studies in ways that conflate e-cigarette use with smoking, obscuring the fundamental differences between these distinct behaviours. The use of "e-cigarette smoking" and its variants in academic literature has notable implications for research integrity, addiction science, public health, and policy. Misleading terminology can contribute to distorted understandings of nicotine dependence, complicate harm reduction strategies, and risk shaping restrictive policies that fail to differentiate e-cigarette use from smoking. Standardising terminology in academic literature is essential to ensure accurate communication, support evidence-based policymaking, and enhance public health initiatives.

摘要

学术文献中用于描述与电子烟相关行为的术语对于准确的交流和解读至关重要。尽管电子烟使用(吸电子烟)和吸烟存在根本差异,但诸如“吸电子烟”之类的术语已被用来指代吸电子烟,这可能会混淆这两种行为。本研究旨在评估“吸电子烟”一词及其变体在同行评审文献中的使用情况,并讨论其使用的影响。使用Embase、Scopus、科学网、ScienceDirect和ProQuest数据库对2015年至2024年发表的学术文献进行了综述。搜索词包括“吸电子烟”及其相关变体,并应用特定于数据库的筛选器以排除不相关的文献类型。在谷歌学术上进行了补充搜索,以获取更广泛的使用情况,包括灰色文献。搜索在Embase中识别出613篇文章,在科学网中识别出462篇,在ScienceDirect中识别出407篇,在Scopus中识别出282篇,在ProQuest中识别出121篇,突出了“吸电子烟”及相关术语的广泛使用。谷歌学术搜索返回了大约4680条结果,反映了“吸电子烟”在包括灰色文献在内的各种出版物类型中的广泛和非正式使用。该术语还以将电子烟使用与吸烟混为一谈的方式出现在高被引和近期的研究中,模糊了这些不同行为之间的根本差异。“吸电子烟”及其变体在学术文献中的使用对研究诚信、成瘾科学、公共卫生和政策具有显著影响。误导性术语可能导致对尼古丁依赖的误解,使减少危害策略复杂化,并有可能形成未能区分电子烟使用和吸烟的限制性政策。在学术文献中规范术语对于确保准确交流、支持基于证据的政策制定以及加强公共卫生倡议至关重要。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验