2024
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1348389
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Protocol for the “magnitude of cigarette substitution after initiation of e-cigarettes and its impact on biomarkers of exposure and potential harm in dual users” (MAGNIFICAT) study

Riccardo Polosa,
Nikola Pluym,
Max Scherer
et al.

Abstract: IntroductionMany smokers who use e-cigarettes (ECs) to quit continue smoking alongside vaping. The impact on health among individuals who simultaneously smoke conventional cigarettes (CCs) and use ECs remains unclear. The varying patterns of dual use present differing levels of overall toxin exposure and relative risks concerning smoking-related diseases. Understanding these complexities is vital to assessing the implications for human health.ObjectiveHerein we describe a protocol designed to analyze the impac… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 32 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This proof-of-concept study was conducted to validate the repeatability of VȮ2max using the Chester Step Test (CST) and to increase researchers' confidence in the value of this test for clinical research, including several clinical trials conducted with smokers at our center of excellence (25,26). No previous data for VO2max values obtained by CST were available for power calculation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This proof-of-concept study was conducted to validate the repeatability of VȮ2max using the Chester Step Test (CST) and to increase researchers' confidence in the value of this test for clinical research, including several clinical trials conducted with smokers at our center of excellence (25,26). No previous data for VO2max values obtained by CST were available for power calculation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%