Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14645955›Full record

ReviewTobacco control2003

"Conclusions about exposure to ETS and health that will be unhelpful to us": how the tobacco industry attempted to delay and discredit the 1997 Australian National Health and Medical Research Council report on passive smoking.

L Trotter, S Chapman

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tobacco control, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

L TrotterSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
S Chapman
University of Sydney · AU

Funding

Analysis of tobacco industry documents--Asia/AustraliaR01CA087110 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY · PI CHAPMAN, SIMON · 2001 to 2004
$817k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA87110-01A1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMajor reviews of the health effects of passive smoking have been subjected to tobacco industry campaigns to refute the scientific evidence. Following the 1992 US Environmental Protection Agency review, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) initiated a review of the health effects of passive smoking. At the time of this review, evidence that environmental tobacco smoke causes disease was being increasingly accepted in courts of law and voluntary adoption of smoking restrictions was rapidly growing.

objectiveTo demonstrate how the tobacco industry attempted to delay and discredit the publication of a report on passive smoking that the tobacco industry anticipated to contain recommendations that would be unfavourable to their business.

methodsA search of tobacco industry documents on the Master Settlement Agreement websites was conducted using the terms and acronyms representative of the NHMRC review.

resultsThe tobacco industry sought to impede the progress of the NHMRC Working Party by launching an intensive campaign to delay and discredit the report. The main strategies used were attempts to criticise the science, extensive use of Freedom of Information provisions to monitor all activity of the group, legal challenges, ad hominem attacks on the credibility of the Working Party members, rallying support from industry allies, and influencing public opinion through the media.

conclusionsThe Australian tobacco industry deliberately impeded the NHMRC Working Party's progress and successfully prevented the publication of the report's recommendations. The tobacco industry's motivation and capacity to disrupt the advancement of scientific knowledge and policy in tobacco control should be recognised and anticipated.

Indexed as

Interprofessional RelationsAustraliaHealth PolicyHealth PromotionHumansOrganizational PolicyPropagandaSmokingSmoking PreventionTobacco IndustryTobacco Smoke PollutionTobacco Smoke Pollution

Identifiers

PMID14645955
PMCPMC1766130
OpenAlexW2161538211

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.