Analysis
Evidence about electronic cigarettes: a foundation built on rock or sand?
BMJ 2015; 351 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4863 (Published 15 September 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;351:h4863
Related articles
- Letter Published: 28 January 2016; BMJ 352 doi:10.1136/bmj.i425
- Feature Published: 03 November 2015; BMJ 351 doi:10.1136/bmj.h5826
- Letter Published: 24 September 2015; BMJ 351 doi:10.1136/bmj.h5010
- Analysis Published: 09 September 2014; BMJ 349 doi:10.1136/bmj.g5512
- News Published: 17 August 2018; BMJ 362 doi:10.1136/bmj.k3571
- News Published: 28 December 2018; BMJ 363 doi:10.1136/bmj.k5429
See more
- Physical activity: government must tackle “stark inequalities,” says BMABMJ October 23, 2019, 367 l6168; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6168
- Abortion in Northern Ireland is decriminalisedBMJ October 22, 2019, 367 l6145; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6145
- Helen Salisbury: Living above the shopBMJ October 22, 2019, 367 l6031; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6031
- Clare Gerada: A sense of belonging is vital for doctorsBMJ October 22, 2019, 367 l6029; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6029
- Fewer people are attending NHS health checks, show figuresBMJ October 18, 2019, 367 l6098; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6098
Cited by...
- Public Health England insists e-cigarettes are 95% safer than smoking
- Beliefs and reality of e-cigarette smoking
- The impact of flavour, device type and warning messages on youth preferences for electronic nicotine delivery systems: evidence from an online discrete choice experiment
- E-cigarettes: relax rules to help more smokers quit, say MPs
- Cohort study of electronic cigarette use: effectiveness and safety at 24 months
- E-cigarettes, a safer alternative for teenagers? A UK focus group study of teenagers' views
- Cardiovascular Perspective of the Promises and Perils of E-Cigarettes
- Electronic cigarettes: the renormalisation of nicotine use
- Electronic cigarettes: help, hurt, or hype?
- Public Health England's troubled trail
- Ann McNeill and colleagues reply to Martin McKee and Simon Capewell