Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21801389›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2011

The scientific foundation for tobacco harm reduction, 2006-2011.

Brad Rodu

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 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. IQOSInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Trial
  4. The Importance of Conditioned Stimuli in Cigarette and E-Cigarette Craving Reduction by E-Cigarettes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Tobacco harm reduction in Afghanistan: a recipe for improving smokers' health.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. What Drives Tobacco Control Policy?Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2016
    Article
  17. The changing tobacco landscape: What dental professionals need to know.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Associations of Proposed Relative-Risk Warning Labels for Snus With Perceptions and Behavioral Intentions Among Tobacco Users and Nonusers.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2016
    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

1 author.

Brad RoduTobacco Harm Reduction Research, University of Louisville, Room 208, Clinical Translational Research Building, 505 S, Hancock Street, KY 40202, Louisville, USA. brad.rodu@louisville.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past five years there has been exponential expansion of interest in tobacco harm reduction (THR), with a concomitant increase in the number of published studies. The purpose of this manuscript is to review and analyze influential contributions to the scientific and medical literature relating to THR, and to discuss issues that continue to stimulate debate. Numerous epidemiologic studies and subsequent meta-analyses confirm that smokeless tobacco (ST) use is associated with minimal risks for cancer and for myocardial infarction; a small increased risk for stroke cannot be excluded. Studies from Sweden document that ST use is not associated with benign gastrointestinal disorders and chronic inflammatory diseases. Although any form of nicotine should be avoided during pregnancy, the highest risks for the developing baby are associated with smoking. It is documented that ST use has been a key factor in the declining rates of smoking and of smoking-related diseases in Sweden and Norway. For other countries, the potential population health benefits of ST are far greater than the potential risks. In follow-up studies, dual users of cigarettes and ST are less likely than exclusive smokers to achieve complete tobacco abstinence, but they are also less likely to be smoking. The health risks from dual use are probably lower than those from exclusive smoking. E-cigarette users are not exposed to the many toxicants, carcinogens and abundant free radicals formed when tobacco is burned. Although laboratory studies have detected trace concentrations of some contaminants, it is a small problem amenable to improvements in quality control and manufacturing that are likely with FDA regulation as tobacco products. There is limited evidence from clinical trials that e-cigarettes deliver only small doses of nicotine compared with conventional cigarettes. However, e-cigarette use emulates successfully the cigarette handling rituals and cues of cigarette smoking, which produces suppression of craving and withdrawal that is not entirely attributable to nicotine delivery. THR has been described as having "the potential to lead to one of the greatest public health breakthroughs in human history by fundamentally changing the forecast of a billion cigarette-caused deaths this century."

Identifiers

PMID21801389
PMCPMC3161854

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.