Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23591508›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2013

Tobacco endgames: what they are and are not, issues for tobacco control strategic planning and a possible US scenario.

Ruth E Malone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2013. 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. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 9. Flavours in novel and emerging nicotine and tobacco products.World Health Organization technical report series · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Potential That Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Can be a Disruptive Technology: Results From a National Survey.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2016
    Article
  17. Review
  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

1 author.

Ruth E MaloneDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94118, USA. ruth.malone@ucsf.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tobacco 'endgame' discourse has emerged in recognition of the nature of the global public health emergency created by tobacco use and tobacco promotion. This discourse is a promising development, but translating it into action requires developing some consensus, at least by countries or regions. It also requires negotiating some of the recurring tensions within the tobacco control movement, contributing to risks for the movement as visionaries clash with pragmatists. This paper outlines one combination of approaches that might hold promise for the US situation. Every significant achievement in tobacco control was preceded by many influential people saying it couldn't be done, wouldn't work, or would create new problems. The risks of not envisioning an endpoint for the tobacco epidemic are far greater than the risks of attempting any endgame solutions and failing.

Indexed as

Smoking PreventionHealth PlanningHealth PromotionHumansPublic Health AdministrationSmoking CessationTobacco IndustryUnited States

Identifiers

PMID23591508
PMCPMC3632994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.