ArticleBMJ open2014
A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Do different actors submit different evidence to alcohol advertising policy consultations?Drug and alcohol review · 2022Pooled it
- How does the alcohol industry attempt to influence marketing regulations? A systematic review.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2016Pooled it
- Public Comments and Federal Rulemaking for Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Which types of research and knowledge translation are most likely to lead to public health-informed policy responses to unhealthy commodities? A UK-based cross-sectional survey and focus group-based study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- The tobacco industry at the health-environment nexus: a framing analysis of the UK 'disposable' e-cigarette ban.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- A thematic analysis of tobacco industry responses to the Scottish Government's consultation on e-cigarette regulation.Health promotion international · 2024Article
- Use of supporting evidence by health and industry organisations in the consultation on e-cigarette regulations in New Zealand.PloS one · 2022Article
- Analysis of submissions to the EU's public consultation on tobacco traceability and security features.Tobacco control · 2021Article
- Longitudinal evaluation of the impact of standardised packaging and minimum excise tax on tobacco sales and industry revenue in the UK.Tobacco control · 2021Article
- Commercial use of evidence in public health policy: a critical assessment of food industry submissions to global-level consultations on non-communicable disease prevention.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- Developing more detailed taxonomies of tobacco industry political activity in low-income and middle-income countries: qualitative evidence from eight countries.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- An evaluation of the evidence submitted to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations.PloS one · 2021Article
- Implementation of Cigarette Plain Packaging: Triadic Reactions of Consumers, State Officials, and Tobacco Companies-The Case of Saudi Arabia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Standardised packaging, minimum excise tax, and RYO focussed tax rise implications for UK tobacco pricing.PloS one · 2020Article
- Using Neuroscience to Inform Tobacco Control Policy.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019Review
- Containing diffusion: the tobacco industry's multipronged trade strategy to block tobacco standardised packaging.Tobacco control · 2019Article
- Article
- Recommendations on how to achieve tobacco-free nations in Europe.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2019Article
- The tobacco industry's challenges to standardised packaging: A comparative analysis of issue framing in public relations campaigns in four countries.Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2018Review
- Evidentiary Support in Public Comments to the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products.Journal of health politics, policy and law · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the volume, relevance and quality of transnational tobacco corporations' (TTCs) evidence that standardised packaging of tobacco products 'won't work', following the UK government's decision to 'wait and see' until further evidence is available.
designContent analysis.
settingWe analysed the evidence cited in submissions by the UK's four largest TTCs to the UK Department of Health consultation on standardised packaging in 2012. OUTCOME MEASURES: The volume, relevance (subject matter) and quality (as measured by independence from industry and peer-review) of evidence cited by TTCs was compared with evidence from a systematic review of standardised packaging . Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the quality of TTC and systematic review evidence. 100% of the data were second-coded to validate the findings: 94.7% intercoder reliability; all differences were resolved.
results77/143 pieces of TTC-cited evidence were used to promote their claim that standardised packaging 'won't work'. Of these, just 17/77 addressed standardised packaging: 14 were industry connected and none were published in peer-reviewed journals. Comparison of TTC and systematic review evidence on standardised packaging showed that the industry evidence was of significantly lower quality in terms of tobacco industry connections and peer-review (p<0.0001). The most relevant TTC evidence (on standardised packaging or packaging generally, n=26) was of significantly lower quality (p<0.0001) than the least relevant (on other topics, n=51). Across the dataset, TTC-connected evidence was significantly less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (p=0.0045).
conclusionsWith few exceptions, evidence cited by TTCs to promote their claim that standardised packaging 'won't work' lacks either policy relevance or key indicators of quality. Policymakers could use these three criteria-subject matter, independence and peer-review status-to critically assess evidence submitted to them by corporate interests via Better Regulation processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.