Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23462922›Full record

Trial reportCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2013

Comparison of nicotine and carcinogen exposure with water pipe and cigarette smoking.

Peyton Jacob, Ahmad H Abu Raddaha, Delia Dempsey, Christopher Havel, Margaret Peng, Lisa Yu, Neal L Benowitz

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

91 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 154 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cancer risk in waterpipe smokers: a meta-analysis.International journal of public health · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Urinary Cyanoethyl Mercapturic Acid, a Biomarker of the Smoke Toxicant Acrylonitrile, Clearly Distinguishes Smokers From Nonsmokers.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Laboratory Analysis of FecalHealth science reports · 2026
    Article
  9. Indoor Air Pollutants of PM2.5, Carbon Monoxide, Nicotine, and Carcinogens in Waterpipe Bars.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Toxicity of waterpipe tobacco smoking: the role of flavors, sweeteners, humectants, and charcoal.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peyton JacobDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco General Hospital, Building 100, Room 235, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA. peyton.jacob@ucsf.edu
Ahmad H Abu Raddaha
Delia Dempsey
Christopher Havel
Margaret Peng
Lisa Yu
Neal L Benowitz
University of California, San Francisco · USSan Francisco General Hospital · US

Funding

UCSF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE INSTITUTEUL1RR024131 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI JOHNSTON, S. CLAIBORNE · 2006 to 2011
$111.2M
Research Support CoreP30DA012393 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ST.HELEN, GIDEON · 1999 to 2024
$17.1M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024131NIDA NIH HHS DA012393NIDA NIH HHS P30 DA012393
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmoking tobacco preparations in a water pipe (hookah) is widespread in many places of the world and is perceived by many as relatively safe. We investigated biomarkers of toxicant exposure with water pipe compared with cigarette smoking.

methodsWe conducted a crossover study to assess daily nicotine and carcinogen exposure with water pipe and cigarette smoking in 13 people who were experienced in using both products.

resultsWhen smoking an average of 3 water pipe sessions compared with smoking 11 cigarettes per day (cpd), water pipe use was associated with a significantly lower intake of nicotine, greater exposure to carbon monoxide (CO), and a different pattern of carcinogen exposure compared with cigarette smoking, with greater exposure to benzene, and high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), but less exposure to tobacco-specific nitrosamines, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, acrylonitrile, propylene oxide, ethylene oxide, and low molecular weight PAHs.

conclusionsA different pattern of carcinogen exposure might result in a different cancer risk profile between cigarette and water pipe smoking. Of particular concern is the risk of leukemia related to high levels of benzene exposure with water pipe use. IMPACT: Smoking tobacco in water pipes has gained popularity in the United States and around the world. Many believe that water pipe smoking is not addictive and less harmful than cigarette smoking. We provide data on toxicant exposure that will help guide regulation and public education regarding water pipe health risk.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBiomarkersCarcinogensCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansMaleNicotineSmokingTobacco ProductsYoung AdultBiomarkersCarcinogensNicotine

Identifiers

PMID23462922
PMCPMC3650103
OpenAlexW2118556847

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.