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. |
Possible Copyvios
I noticed that the wordings of a couple of statements in the Aerosol section are very similar to their source, Grana2014.
- Source: In summary, the particle size distribution and number of particles delivered by e-cigarettes are similar to those of conventional cigarettes, with most particles in the ultrafine range (modes, ≈100–200 nm).
- Article: a 2014 review found that the particle size distribution and sum of particles emitted by e-cigarettes are like traditional cigarettes, with the majority of particles in the ultrafine range (modes, ≈100–200).
- Source: These metal nanoparticles can deposit into alveolar sacs in the lungs, potentially causing local respiratory toxicity and entering the bloodstream.
- Article: Metal nanoparticles can deposit in the lung's alveolar sacs, potentially leading to local respiratory toxicity.
Is it necessary to reword them? P Walford (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I will if you dont want to. Copyvios are serious problems. AlbinoFerret 16:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done It might be useful to mention that the number of metal nanoparticles is very small. P Walford (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have noticed that a lot of the claims I have had to look up to rewrite have either left out important info, left out mitigating information, or were written from the abstract. I think it may be wise to go through every claim and double check that they are complete and not based on the abstract but the body. AlbinoFerret 21:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done It might be useful to mention that the number of metal nanoparticles is very small. P Walford (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
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]"
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.
- 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)
- ^ 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.