Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24726428›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol dependence2014

Partner smoking and maternal cotinine during pregnancy: implications for negative control methods.

Amy E Taylor, George Davey Smith, Cristina B Bares, Alexis C Edwards, Marcus R Munafò

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Amy E TaylorMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU) at the University of Bristol, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, 12a Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TU, UK. Electronic address: amy.taylor@bristol.ac.uk.
George Davey SmithMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU) at the University of Bristol, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 2BN, UK.
Cristina B BaresSchool of Social Work, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284-2027, USA.
Alexis C EdwardsVirginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298-0126, USA.
Marcus R MunafòMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU) at the University of Bristol, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, 12a Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TU, UK.
University of Bristol · GBVirginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

LCenter for Clinical and Translational Science and TrainingUL1TR001425 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI HEUBI, JAMES E., KISSELA, BRETT M · 2015 to 2024
$37.5M
Genetic influences on developmental heterogeneity of alcohol use disorderK01AA021399 · NIAAA · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI EDWARDS, ALEXIS C · 2012 to 2016
$707k
Medical Research Council G0800612Medical Research Council G0802736Medical Research Council G9815508Medical Research Council MC_PC_15018Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/6Medical Research Council MR/J01351X/1Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001425NIAAA NIH HHS K01 AA021399Wellcome Trust 092731Wellcome Trust 102215
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComparison of the associations of maternal and mother's partner smoking with offspring outcomes is, in theory, a useful method for assessing whether there may be an intrauterine effect of tobacco exposure on these outcomes. However, this approach assumes that the effects of passive smoking from exposure to partner smoking during pregnancy are minimal. We evaluated this assumption using a biochemical measure of tobacco exposure in pregnant women.

methodsCotinine levels taken during the first trimester of pregnancy were measured in a sample of 3928 women from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Median cotinine values were compared across categories of smoking heaviness (cigarettes per day) of the women during the first trimester and in non-smoking women by the smoking heaviness of their partner.

resultsCotinine levels were substantially higher in women who smoked compared to non-smokers (range of medians across smoking heaviness categories: 900-5362 ng/ml versus 20 ng/ml, interquartile range (IQR) (0-63) for non-smokers). In contrast, cotinine levels in non-smoking women were only very weakly related to partner smoking status (range of medians in women with smoking partners: 34-69 ng/ml versus 12 ng/ml, IQR (0-48) in women with non-smoking partners).

conclusionsLevels of tobacco exposure from partner smoking, as assessed by cotinine, were low in non-smoking pregnant women. This suggests that using mother's partner's smoking as a negative control for investigating intrauterine effects is valid.

Indexed as

AdultCotinineFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, FirstProspective StudiesSmokingSpousesTobacco Smoke PollutionCotinineTobacco Smoke PollutionALSPACCigarette smokingIntrauterine exposureNegative controlPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID24726428
PMCPMC4026952
OpenAlexW2003714149

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.