Bibliometric analysis of electronic cigarette publications: 2003–2018

Michael Briganti, Cristine D. Delnevo, Leanne Brown, Shirin E. Hastings, Michael B. Steinberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Scopus citations

Abstract

Electronic cigarettes are at the center of a public health policy debate which leverages scientific publications. This study characterizes e-cigarette publication trends over the past 15 years via a bibliometric analysis. Scopus was searched for “electronic cigarette”, “e-cig”, “e-cigarette”, “vape”, “vaping”, “juul”, or “electronic nicotine delivery system” between 2003–2018. Data included Hirsch index, document type and frequency, and publications by institution, journal, and country. VOSviewer was used to visualize authorship network maps. A total of 4490 e-cigarette publications were identified, most (62.8%) being articles. After 2009, the annual growth rate for e-cigarette publications was the largest in 2014. The annual growth rate was nearly flat in 2017 but increased in 2018. The U.S. produced 51.6% of publications. Annual National Institutes of Health NIH funding for tobacco research mapped closely with the annual volume of e-cigarette publications. Author network analyses illustrated investigator collaborative patterns. The frequency of e-cigarette publications increased significantly in the past decade. A strong relationship of NIH funding for tobacco research and e-cigarette publications demonstrates the importance of e-cigarettes in tobacco research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number320
JournalInternational journal of environmental research and public health
Volume16
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

Keywords

  • Author network
  • Bibliometric
  • E-cigarettes
  • Electronic cigarettes
  • Electronic nicotine delivery system
  • Publications

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Bibliometric analysis of electronic cigarette publications: 2003–2018'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this