Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21219609›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2011

US smokers' reactions to a brief trial of oral nicotine products.

Richard J O'Connor, Kaila J Norton, Maansi Bansal-Travers, Martin C Mahoney, K Michael Cummings, Ron Borland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Systematic Review of Tobacco Use after Lung or Head/Neck Cancer Diagnosis: Results and Recommendations for Future Research.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Brief, instructional smokeless tobacco use among cigarette smokers who do not intend to quit: a pilot randomized clinical trial.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2014
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Perceptions of Snus Among US Adult Smokers Given Free Product.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2017
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Subjective responses to oral tobacco products: scale validation.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2013
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Richard J O'ConnorDepartment of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. richard.oconnor@roswellpark.org.
Kaila J Norton
Maansi Bansal-Travers
Martin C Mahoney
K Michael Cummings
Ron Borland

Funding

Exploring current smokers? interest in using smokeless tobacco productsR01CA141609 · NCI · ROSWELL PARK CANCER INSTITUTE CORP · PI O'CONNOR, RICHARD J · 2009 to 2013
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA141609
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has been suggested that cigarette smokers will switch to alternative oral nicotine delivery products to reduce their health risks if informed of the relative risk difference. However, it is important to assess how smokers are likely to use cigarette alternatives before making predictions about their potential to promote individual or population harm reduction.

objectivesThis study examines smokers' interest in using a smokeless tobacco or a nicotine replacement product as a substitute for their cigarettes.

methodsThe study included 67 adult cigarette smokers, not currently interested in quitting, who were given an opportunity to sample four alternative oral nicotine products: 1) Camel Snus, 2) Marlboro Snus, 3) Stonewall dissolvable tobacco tablets, and 4) Commit nicotine lozenges. At visit 1, subjects were presented information about the relative benefits/risks of oral nicotine delivery compared to cigarettes. At visit 2, subjects were given a supply of each of the four products to sample at home for a week. At visit 3, subjects received a one-week supply of their preferred product to see if using such products reduced or eliminated cigarette use.

resultsAfter multiple product sampling, participants preferred the Commit lozenges over the three smokeless tobacco products (p = 0.011). Following the one week single-product trial experience, GEE models controlling for gender, age, level of education, baseline cigarettes use, and alternative product chosen, indicated a significant decline in cigarettes smoked per day across one week of single-product sampling (p < 0.01, from 11.8 to 8.7 cigarettes per day), but no change in alternative product use (approximately 4.5 units per day). Biomarkers of exposure showed no change in cotinine, but a 19% reduction in exhaled CO (p < 0.001).

conclusionsFindings from this study show that smokers, who are currently unwilling to make a quit attempt, may be willing to use alternative products in the short term as a temporary substitute for smoking. However, this use is more likely to be for partial substitution (i.e. they will continue to smoke, albeit at a lower rate) rather than complete substitution. Of the various substitutes offered, smokers were more willing to use a nicotine replacement product over a tobacco-based product.

Identifiers

PMID21219609
PMCPMC3032705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.