You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Special communication
Hidden flaws in e-cigarette industry-funded studies
  1. Eric K Soule1,2,
  2. Matthew E Rossheim3,
  3. Melvin D Livingston4,
  4. Cassidy R LoParco5,
  5. Kayla K Tillett3,
  6. Thomas Eissenberg2,
  7. Steve Sussman6
  1. 1Department of Health Education and Promotion, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
  2. 2Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA
  3. 3University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas, USA
  4. 4Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  5. 5George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
  6. 6Departments of Preventive Medicine and Psychology, and School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Pasadena, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Eric K Soule, Department of Health Education and Promotion, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA; soulee18{at}ecu.edu

Abstract

Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use has increased since e-cigarettes were introduced to the market nearly 20 years ago. Researchers continue to conduct studies to understand the health risks and benefits of e-cigarettes to inform health education and promotion efforts as well as public policy. Studies funded by the tobacco industry examining the potential risks and benefits of e-cigarettes have also been conducted and are sometimes published in the scientific literature. Frequently, tobacco and e-cigarette industry-funded researchers report findings that contradict research funded by other sources. While many industry-funded studies may appear methodologically sound at first glance, in some cases, industry-funded studies include methodological flaws that result in misleading conclusions. The tobacco industry’s use of biased research to influence tobacco-related policy decisions in the past is well-documented. This commentary provides specific examples of recent e-cigarette research funded by the tobacco/e-cigarette industry in which methodological flaws result in misleading conclusions that support industry goals. Given the long history of biased research conducted by the tobacco industry, there is a need to assess whether research funded by the e-cigarette industry similarly contains methodological flaws. We emphasise the need for tobacco and e-cigarette-funded research to be scrutinised by non-industry-funded subject matter experts and call for journals to not consider manuscripts that have received support from the tobacco or e-cigarette industry.

  • tobacco industry
  • electronic nicotine delivery devices
  • nicotine
  • cessation

https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-058609

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors ES and MER wrote the original draft of the manuscript and all other authors provided critical review of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version.

    • Funding ES’s effort is supported by grant number P50MD017319 from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health. ES’s and TE’s effort are supported by grant number U54DA036105 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Tobacco Products of the US Food and Drug Administration. This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the NIH or the FDA.

    • Competing interests TE is a paid consultant in litigation against the tobacco industry and also the electronic cigarette industry and is named on one patent for a device that measures the puffing behaviour of electronic cigarette users and a patent application for a smoking cessation intervention. TE and ES are named on a patent application for a smartphone app that determines electronic cigarette device and liquid characteristics.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.