ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2005
The smoker's paradox and the real risk of smoking.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lifetime cigarette smoking and breast cancer prognosis in the After Breast Cancer Pooling Project.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2014Pooled it
- "Smoker's paradox" in in-hospital outcomes of left ventricular assist device implantation: a population-based analysis of National Inpatient Sample from 2015-2021.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2025Article
- Baseline factors identified for the prediction of good responders in patients with end-stage diffuse coronary artery disease undergoing intracoronary CD34+ cell therapy.Stem cell research & therapy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
No satisfactory explanations have been offered for the smoker's paradox, the greater short-term survival of smokers after a myocardial infarction nor for the large variations in the coronary risk rate for smoking ranging between 1 and 5.9. These discrepancies as well as the smoker's paradox may be caused by different baseline characteristics of smokers and nonsmokers, whereas the usually quoted coronary risk of 2 is derived from studies based on the assumption of equal baseline characteristics. As neither this assumption nor the possibility of unequal starting conditions have been tested, we examined the main cardiovascular risk factors in smoking and nonsmoking boys as near as possible to baseline, at the age of fourteen. This age appeared to be best suited, because boys starting to smoke early are most likely to become regular and heavy smokers. Of 336 boys, 39 had smoked 8.3+/-6.0 cigarettes/day for 15.5+/-11.2 months. Compared to nonsmokers, boys who started to smoke early had lower LDL cholesterol and alpha2-antiplasmin, greater handgrip strength, vital capacity and forced expiratory volume, better perfomance on bicycle ergometry and higher testosterone. The differences in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, vital capacity, handgrip strength, testosterone and alpha2-antiplasmin persisted after adjustment for age, body mass, and testosterone. In addition, the differences in perfomance on bicycle ergometry and forced expiratory volume persisted after adjustment for age. These favourable baseline characteristics of those starting to smoke early can explain the smoker's paradox. In addition, they suggest that the individual coronary risk in smokers is considerably higher than 2, because the assumption of equal baseline characteristics of smokers and nonsmokers cannot be upheld.
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.