Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12612356›Full record

SynthesisTobacco control2003

Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry.

M Scollo, A Lal, A Hyland, S Glantz

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Tobacco control, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

101 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Effect of comprehensive smoke-free legislation on the tourism industry in countries of the Caribbean Community.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2022
    Article
  9. Support for smoke-free public places among adults in four countries in sub-Saharan Africa.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Subnational smoke-free laws in China.Tobacco induced diseases · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

M ScolloVicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control, The Cancer Council, Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. michelle.scollo@cancervic.org.au
A Lal
A Hyland
S Glantz

Funding

Two-Spirit Films in Indigenous Cancer HealthP30CA016056 · NCI · ROSWELL PARK CANCER INSTITUTE CORP · PI MARK G FRATTINI · 1985 to 2026
$116.6M
TOBACCO ADVOCACY AT THE STATE LEVELR01CA061021 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI GLANTZ, STANTON ARNOLD · 1994 to 2015
$7.4M
NCI NIH HHS CA16056-26NCI NIH HHS CA-61021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the quality and funding source of studies concluding a negative economic impact of smoke-free policies in the hospitality industry to studies concluding no such negative impact. DATA SOURCES: Researchers sought all studies produced before 31 August 2002. Articles published in scientific journals were located with Medline, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Current Contents, PsychInfo, Econlit, and Healthstar. Unpublished studies were located from tobacco company websites and through internet searches. STUDY SELECTION: 97 studies that made statements about economic impact were included. 93% of the studies located met the selection criteria as determined by consensus between multiple reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION: Findings and characteristics of studies (apart from funding source) were classified independently by two researchers. A third assessor blind to both the objective of the present study and to funding source also classified each study. DATA SYNTHESIS: In studies concluding a negative impact, the odds of using a subjective outcome measure was 4.0 times (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4 to 9.6; p = 0.007) and the odds of not being peer reviewed was 20 times (95% CI 2.6 to 166.7; p = 0.004) that of studies concluding no such negative impact. All of the studies concluding a negative impact were supported by the tobacco industry. 94% of the tobacco industry supported studies concluded a negative economic impact compared to none of the non-industry supported studies.

conclusionAll of the best designed studies report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales or employment. Policymakers can act to protect workers and patrons from the toxins in secondhand smoke confident in rejecting industry claims that there will be an adverse economic impact.

Indexed as

CommerceHumansResearch DesignResearch Support as TopicRestaurantsSmokingSmoking PreventionTobacco IndustryTobacco Smoke PollutionTobacco Smoke Pollution

Identifiers

PMID12612356
PMCPMC1759095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.