AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) |
AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
* Looking at this from a high level - the Farsalinos nor Polosa paper is a really transparent advocacy piece for e-cigs as smoking cessation devices. Last line: "Due to their unique characteristics, ECs represent a historical opportunity to save millions of lives and significantly reduce the burden of smoking-related diseases worldwide." They take pains to discount every study that may give caution. So hm, advocate much? On this specific issue, neither is a toxicologist so it is unclear what the basis for their critique is. When I work on controversial issues and find a clearly biased paper like this, I don't bring it to the table. The originally cited review by Ebbert is an uncritical narrative review in the tox section, just citing the primary sources and summarizing what they say. When I find reviews like this, I generally don't use them for those parts, because there was actually no ''review''. (this is especially true about tox stuff) About Johnbod's remark - yes, solid tox work involves animal studies, for sure. Where I end up is - delete the detail b/c it is not "accepted knowledge" yet - namely, delete "Cinnamaldehyde has been documented as a highly cytotoxic material in vitro and has been found to be present in certain cinnamon-flavored refill solutions.[1] A study has demonstrated that a balsamic flavored e-cigarette with no nicotine is capable of triggering a proinflammatory cytokine release in lung epithelial cells and keratinocytes.[31]" If there is ever a review done using standards/methods of toxicology (in deciding what research papers to even consider, looking at whether the research took into account routes of exposure, dose/response, use of an appropriate animal model, etc) that will be an awesome source for this kind of detail. The rest of the paragraph seems OK to me. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
* Looking at this from a high level - the Farsalinos nor Polosa paper is a really transparent advocacy piece for e-cigs as smoking cessation devices. Last line: "Due to their unique characteristics, ECs represent a historical opportunity to save millions of lives and significantly reduce the burden of smoking-related diseases worldwide." They take pains to discount every study that may give caution. So hm, advocate much? On this specific issue, neither is a toxicologist so it is unclear what the basis for their critique is. When I work on controversial issues and find a clearly biased paper like this, I don't bring it to the table. The originally cited review by Ebbert is an uncritical narrative review in the tox section, just citing the primary sources and summarizing what they say. When I find reviews like this, I generally don't use them for those parts, because there was actually no ''review''. (this is especially true about tox stuff) About Johnbod's remark - yes, solid tox work involves animal studies, for sure. Where I end up is - delete the detail b/c it is not "accepted knowledge" yet - namely, delete "Cinnamaldehyde has been documented as a highly cytotoxic material in vitro and has been found to be present in certain cinnamon-flavored refill solutions.[1] A study has demonstrated that a balsamic flavored e-cigarette with no nicotine is capable of triggering a proinflammatory cytokine release in lung epithelial cells and keratinocytes.[31]" If there is ever a review done using standards/methods of toxicology (in deciding what research papers to even consider, looking at whether the research took into account routes of exposure, dose/response, use of an appropriate animal model, etc) that will be an awesome source for this kind of detail. The rest of the paragraph seems OK to me. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
:Now that is a personal opinion reading into a review. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 03:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
::Now that is a personal opinion reading into a review. If problems are detected and they are from a reliable source we as editors cant read betweek the lines. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 03:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Dubious tag == |
== Dubious tag == |
Revision as of 03:30, 10 February 2016
![]() | Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Dubious
"Commonly reported adverse effects from e-cigarette use include upper respiratory tract irritation, dry cough, dryness of the mucus membrane, nose bleeding, release of cytokines and pro-inflammatory mediators, allergic air way inflammation, reduced levels of exhaled nitric oxide, headache, dizziness, nervousness, insomnia, sleeplessness, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, tongue sores, black tongue, gum bleeding, gingivitis, gastric burning, constipation, palpitation, chest pain, eye irritation, eye redness, eye dryness, may result in eye damage, altered bronchial gene expression, chance of lung cancer, shortness of breath, and shivering."
This sentence in Adverse effects is cited to 5 sources. One is paywalled, and I can't access it. Three others do not support it. It appears to come from the first cited source, [1]. The list includes observations in mice, observations of cells in vitro, and "may result in" and "chance of" statements. I removed these misleading parts. The statement is still problematic because of the word "commonly". I added a tag. P Walford (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- The last few were done to combine the multiple adverse effects statements that duplicated what was in that list. Perhaps adding them in a note would be better and explain that they mention some of the adverse effects listed. Im going to remove commonly. Some of those are not common. The source also contadicts itself on this, it lumps them all in a table that says frequent, then in the body says things like this "In addition, e smoking can cause, headache, sleepiness, sleeplessness, dizziness, gingivitis and black tongue." That doesnt say common to me. AlbinoFerret 14:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I removed the tag. I don't know why this source is used for anything. Better ones are available. P Walford (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Because it has that list is my guess, I didnt add it. The editor who did is topic banned at this time. AlbinoFerret 14:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I grouped the other references in a note. AlbinoFerret 18:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are still problems with this sentence. Dryness of the mucus [sic] membrane, eye irritation, and eye dryness are cited to this article, which in turn cites studies of the use of glycol and glycerol in theatrical settings, and as such are not reported adverse effects of EC use. Eye redness is cited to the same source, but I couldn’t find it there. Insomnia is cited to the Farsalinos survey, which doesn’t mention it. Interestingly Farsalinos does list sleepiness, something Meo & al Asiri didn’t mention. Gastric burning and constipation aren't cited to anything. I didn’t see shortness of breath and shivering in the source they cited.
- Thanks, I removed the tag. I don't know why this source is used for anything. Better ones are available. P Walford (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are enough errors and inaccuracies in this source to remove the entire sentence. If there’s a need for an exhaustive list of reported adverse effects, I suggest starting again with the other sources cited in the note. Furthermore, the other sentence cited to Meo & al Asiri, “Nicotine may result in neuroplasticity variations in the brain”, should be removed. Even if it’s deemed to be a reliable source for this content and to have sufficient weight, its place is the Nicotine article. P Walford (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- When its discussing chemicals that we know are in the liquid, I think it would be better to keep them. Those effects that are incorrectly attributed to other sources that dont mention them is a red flag. But I think we need more input before any removal is done. Perhaps a post on the main articles talk page mentioning this section would be a good idea. AlbinoFerret 18:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- It needs sorting out, and ideally sorting known side effects from nicotine in any form ("dizziness, nervousness, insomnia, sleeplessness, nausea, vomiting" I suppose) from those specific to e-cigs. What is the difference between insomnia and sleeplessness anyway? Johnbod (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- When its discussing chemicals that we know are in the liquid, I think it would be better to keep them. Those effects that are incorrectly attributed to other sources that dont mention them is a red flag. But I think we need more input before any removal is done. Perhaps a post on the main articles talk page mentioning this section would be a good idea. AlbinoFerret 18:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are enough errors and inaccuracies in this source to remove the entire sentence. If there’s a need for an exhaustive list of reported adverse effects, I suggest starting again with the other sources cited in the note. Furthermore, the other sentence cited to Meo & al Asiri, “Nicotine may result in neuroplasticity variations in the brain”, should be removed. Even if it’s deemed to be a reliable source for this content and to have sufficient weight, its place is the Nicotine article. P Walford (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
VA study
An interesting new primary in-vitro study shows cytotoxicity and genotoxicity with or without nicotine:
- Yu V, Rahimy M, Korrapati A, Xuan Y, Zou AE, Krishnan AR, Tsui T, Aguilera JA, Advani S, Crotty Alexander LE, Brumund KT, Wang-Rodriguez J, Ongkeko WM (January 2016). "Electronic cigarettes induce DNA strand breaks and cell death independently of nicotine in cell lines". Oral Oncol. 52: 58–65. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2015.10.018. PMID 26547127.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|laysource=
ignored (help)
It probably can't be used at this stage, but it's bound to show up in secondary sources soon. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Is this the same case?
In the Poisoning section:
"In the United States, a child died after ingesting liquid nicotine in 2014, and another in Israel in 2013.[1] In December 2014, a one-year-old child in Fort Plain, New York died after an accidental ingestion of nicotine liquid.[2]"
References
- ^ Biyani, S; Derkay, CS (28 April 2015). "E-cigarettes: Considerations for the otolaryngologist". International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology. 79: 1180–3. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.04.032. PMID 25998217.
- ^ Mohney, Gillian, "First Child's Death From Liquid Nicotine Reported as 'Vaping' Gains Popularity", ABC News, December 12, 2014.
Is the US child in the first sentence and the child in the second sentence the same child? I can't access the first source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P Walford (talk • contribs) 15:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- While I dont have access to the first, the review is dated in 2015, and the news report is from 2014. Since the 2015 review says one child died in the US in 2014, odds are its the same. Even if its not, we should not be using a popular press source for this type of claim. It is a biomedical claim to attribute a death to something. AlbinoFerret 15:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- While technically it doesn't say the death was caused by nicotine poisoning, the implication is present. As far as I know, medical confirmation of the cause of death was never made public. This newspaper article says it was "the first child in the country to die from accidentally swallowing the toxic ingredient in electronic cigarettes, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics." Considering the event occurred in December, the two sentences appear to refer to the same child. The second should be removed. Btw, the PHE report said the incident in Israel is an unconfirmed newspaper report.
- Agreed, we could keep the reference and just move it to the remaining claim as additional support.AlbinoFerret 18:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- While technically it doesn't say the death was caused by nicotine poisoning, the implication is present. As far as I know, medical confirmation of the cause of death was never made public. This newspaper article says it was "the first child in the country to die from accidentally swallowing the toxic ingredient in electronic cigarettes, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics." Considering the event occurred in December, the two sentences appear to refer to the same child. The second should be removed. Btw, the PHE report said the incident in Israel is an unconfirmed newspaper report.
Cinnamaldehyde
"Cinnamaldehyde has been documented as a highly cytotoxic material in cinnamon-flavored refill solutions."
- Per Awilley's request I checked the source, and it does say this:
"Cinnamaldehyde has been specifically identified as a highly cytotoxic substance in cinnamon-flavored refill fluids."
- It's cited to Behar et al. Farsalinos and Polosa say:
"A recent study evaluated in more detail the cytotoxic potential of eight cinnamon-flavored EC liquids in human embryonic stem cells and human pulmonary fibroblasts [Behar et al. 2014]. The authors found that the flavoring substance predominantly present was cinnamaldehyde, which is approved for food use. They observed significant cytotoxic effects, mostly on stem cells but also on fibroblasts, with cytotoxicity associated with the amount of cinnamaldehyde present in the liquid. However, major methodological issues arose from this study. Once again, cytotoxicity was just restricted to EC liquids and not to their vapors. Moreover, the authors mentioned that the amount of cinnamaldehyde differed between liquids by up to 100 times, and this raises the suspicion of testing concentrated flavor rather than refills. By searching the internet and contacting manufacturers, based on the names of samples and suppliers mentioned in the manuscript, it was found that at least four of their samples were not refills but concentrated flavors. Surprisingly, the levels of cinnamaldehyde found to be cytotoxic were about 400 times lower than those currently approved for use [Environmental Protection Agency, 2000]."
- Don't know what to do with this. P Walford (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like bad methodology, not sure if this should remain as it calls into question the reliability of the information. If it stays more information on the methodology should be added. AlbinoFerret 13:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- We have contradictory secondary sources and no clear reason to disregard either. Your own interpretation of the evidence does not come into it, so we should simply present both sides. CFCF 💌 📧 23:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is all test tube evidence - in a cancer article we wouldn't allow this for supposed carcinogens. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS discounts the use of single in vitro studies as primary sources for statements, and this is secondary sourced material. As long as we are clear that this is in vitro there is nothing that speaks against including it—and including any controversy surrounding it. CFCF 💌 📧 00:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- No personal opinions involved, Farsalinos and Polosa clearly describe bad methodology. Including adding in pure flavourings to what was tested, not eliquid. If it stays this bad methodology will have to be added. AlbinoFerret 01:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is all test tube evidence - in a cancer article we wouldn't allow this for supposed carcinogens. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- We have contradictory secondary sources and no clear reason to disregard either. Your own interpretation of the evidence does not come into it, so we should simply present both sides. CFCF 💌 📧 23:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like bad methodology, not sure if this should remain as it calls into question the reliability of the information. If it stays more information on the methodology should be added. AlbinoFerret 13:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at this from a high level - the Farsalinos nor Polosa paper is a really transparent advocacy piece for e-cigs as smoking cessation devices. Last line: "Due to their unique characteristics, ECs represent a historical opportunity to save millions of lives and significantly reduce the burden of smoking-related diseases worldwide." They take pains to discount every study that may give caution. So hm, advocate much? On this specific issue, neither is a toxicologist so it is unclear what the basis for their critique is. When I work on controversial issues and find a clearly biased paper like this, I don't bring it to the table. The originally cited review by Ebbert is an uncritical narrative review in the tox section, just citing the primary sources and summarizing what they say. When I find reviews like this, I generally don't use them for those parts, because there was actually no review. (this is especially true about tox stuff) About Johnbod's remark - yes, solid tox work involves animal studies, for sure. Where I end up is - delete the detail b/c it is not "accepted knowledge" yet - namely, delete "Cinnamaldehyde has been documented as a highly cytotoxic material in vitro and has been found to be present in certain cinnamon-flavored refill solutions.[1] A study has demonstrated that a balsamic flavored e-cigarette with no nicotine is capable of triggering a proinflammatory cytokine release in lung epithelial cells and keratinocytes.[31]" If there is ever a review done using standards/methods of toxicology (in deciding what research papers to even consider, looking at whether the research took into account routes of exposure, dose/response, use of an appropriate animal model, etc) that will be an awesome source for this kind of detail. The rest of the paragraph seems OK to me. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Now that is a personal opinion reading into a review. If problems are detected and they are from a reliable source we as editors cant read betweek the lines. AlbinoFerret 03:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Dubious tag
Awilley—I looked up the source and the content was almost to close to the source, bordering on COPYVIO, so no need to add a dubious tag. I've rewritten it for clarity, if you have trouble accessing sources feel free to send me an e-mail. CFCF 💌 📧 23:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)