Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19959677›Full record

ReviewCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2009

Evaluation of in vitro assays for assessing the toxicity of cigarette smoke and smokeless tobacco.

Michael D Johnson, Jodi Schilz, Mirjana V Djordjevic, Jerry R Rice, Peter G Shields

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 162 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Frontiers in toxicology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Toxicology reports · 2019
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael D JohnsonLombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20057-1465, USA.
Jodi Schilz
Mirjana V Djordjevic
Jerry R Rice
Peter G Shields
Georgetown University · USNational Cancer Institute · US

Funding

MUTAGENESIS OF THE PRB POCKET DOMAINR01CA064402 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI DYSON, NICHOLAS J · 1994 to 2015
$4.1M
NCI NIH HHS N01 CN064402NCI NIH HHS N01 PC064402NCI NIH HHS N01-PC-64402
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn vitro toxicology studies of tobacco and tobacco smoke have been used to understand why tobacco use causes cancer and to assess the toxicologic impact of tobacco product design changes. The need for toxicology studies has been heightened given the Food and Drug Administration's newly granted authority over tobacco products for mandating tobacco product performance standards and evaluate manufacturers' health claims about modified tobacco products. The goal of this review is to critically evaluate in vitro toxicology methods related to cancer for assessing tobacco products and to identify related research gaps.

methodsPubMed database searches were used to identify tobacco-related in vitro toxicology studies published since 1980. Articles published before 1980 with high relevance also were identified. The data were compiled to examine (a) the goals of the study, (b) the methods for collecting test substances, (c) experimental designs, (d) toxicologic end points, and (e) relevance to cancer risk.

resultsA variety of in vitro assays are available to assess tobacco smoke that address different modes of action, mostly using non-human cell models. However, smokeless tobacco products perform poorly in these assays. Although reliable as a screening tool for qualitative assessments, the available in vitro assays have been poorly validated for quantitative comparisons of different tobacco products. Assay batteries have not been developed, although they exist for nontobacco assessments. Extrapolating data from in vitro studies to human risks remains hypothetical.

conclusionsIn vitro toxicology methods are useful for screening toxicity, but better methods are needed for today's context of regulation and evaluation of health claims.

Indexed as

Biological AssayHumansRisk AssessmentSmokingTobacco, SmokelessToxicity Tests

Identifiers

PMID19959677
PMCPMC2789344
OpenAlexW2061417688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.