Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23152726›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2012

The case for a smoker's license.

Simon Chapman

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Commercial Tobacco Endgame Goals: Early Experiences From Six Countries.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  3. Towards stronger tobacco control policies to curb the smoking epidemic in Spain.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Willingness to Stop Growing Tobacco in Uganda.Journal of global oncology · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. An endgame for tobacco?Tobacco control · 2013
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Simon ChapmanUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Simon.Chapman@sydney.edu.au

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background to the debateTobacco continues to kill millions of people around the world each year and its use is increasing in some countries, which makes the need for new, creative, and radical efforts to achieve the tobacco control endgame vitally important. One such effort is discussed in this PLOS Medicine Debate, where Simon Chapman presents his proposal for a "smoker's license" and Jeff Collin argues against. Chapman sets out a case for introducing a smart card license for smokers designed to limit access to tobacco products and encourage cessation. Key elements of the smoker's license include smokers setting daily limits, financial incentives for permanent license surrender, and a test of health risk knowledge for commencing smokers. Collin argues against the proposal, saying that it would shift focus away from the real vector of the epidemic--the tobacco industry--and that by focusing on individuals it would censure victims, increase stigmatization of smokers, and marginalize the poor.

Indexed as

Smoking PreventionAge FactorsGovernment RegulationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PolicyHumansLicensureSmoking CessationTobacco Industry

Identifiers

PMID23152726
PMCPMC3496663

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.