ArticleAmerican journal of public health2001
Turning science into junk: the tobacco industry and passive smoking.
Article in American journal of public health, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Associated with Tobacco Cessation in Primary Health Care.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2021Article
- Beyond nutrition and physical activity: food industry shaping of the very principles of scientific integrity.Globalization and health · 2021Review
- Article
- The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation.American sociological review · 2010Article
- Tobacco industry efforts to undermine policy-relevant research.American journal of public health · 2009Article
- Old ways, new means: tobacco industry funding of academic and private sector scientists since the Master Settlement Agreement.Tobacco control · 2007Review
- Challenging the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking: tactics of tobacco industry expert witnesses.Tobacco control · 2006Review
- Implementation failures in the use of two New Zealand laws to control the tobacco industry: 1989-2005.Australia and New Zealand health policy · 2005Article
- "Sound science" and tobacco exposure.American journal of public health · 2002Article
- Evidence-Based Health Policies and Its Discontents - Comparative Global and Indian Perspectives with a Focus on the COVID-19 Pandemic.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social MedicineArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this issue, Glantz and Ong offer a powerful analysis of the tobacco industry's attempt to discredit the scientific evidence on passive smoking, particularly the industry's use of the label "junk science." Environmental epidemiologic studies in other arenas have also been targets for the "junk science" label. Lessons for researchers involved in high-stakes issues in the public policy arena include a need for awareness of competing interests, for transparency concerning funding, and for adherence to rigorous quality assurance and peer review practices. The goal of "sound science" seems an admirable one; it should not, however, be used to dismiss available but uncertain evidence in order to delay action.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.