{"title":"“吸电子烟”是一个误导性的术语:对其在学术文献中的使用进行了批判性回顾。","authors":"Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi, Nafisat Dasola Jimoh, Chimwemwe Ngoma","doi":"10.1007/s11739-025-04014-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'E-cigarette smoking' is a misleading term: a critical review of its use in academic literature.\",\"authors\":\"Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi, Nafisat Dasola Jimoh, Chimwemwe Ngoma\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11739-025-04014-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-025-04014-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-025-04014-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
学术文献中用于描述电子烟相关行为的术语对于准确的沟通和解释至关重要。尽管使用电子烟(vaping)和吸烟之间存在根本差异,但“电子烟”等术语已被用来指电子烟,可能会将这两种行为混为一谈。本研究旨在评估“电子烟”一词及其变体在同行评议文献中的使用情况,并讨论其使用的含义。使用Embase、Scopus、Web of Science、ScienceDirect和ProQuest数据库对2015年至2024年间发表的学术文献进行了回顾。搜索包括“电子烟”和相关变体等术语,并应用特定于数据库的过滤器来排除不相关的文档类型。在b谷歌Scholar中进行了补充搜索,以获取更广泛的用法,包括灰色文献。搜索发现Embase中有613篇文章,Web of Science中有462篇,ScienceDirect中有407篇,Scopus中有282篇,ProQuest中有121篇,突出了“电子烟”和相关术语的广泛使用。谷歌学者搜索返回了大约4680个结果,反映了“电子烟吸烟”在各种出版物类型(包括灰色文献)中的广泛和非正式使用。这个词也出现在被大量引用和最近的研究中,将使用电子烟与吸烟混为一谈,模糊了这些不同行为之间的根本区别。在学术文献中使用“电子烟”及其变体对研究诚信、成瘾科学、公共卫生和政策有着显著的影响。误导性术语可能导致对尼古丁依赖的扭曲理解,使减少危害的策略复杂化,并有可能形成无法区分电子烟使用和吸烟的限制性政策。标准化学术文献中的术语对于确保准确沟通、支持循证决策和加强公共卫生举措至关重要。
'E-cigarette smoking' is a misleading term: a critical review of its use in academic literature.
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.
期刊介绍:
Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.