Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25914263›Full record

ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2015

Preliminary Evaluation of a New German Translated Tobacco Quality of Life Impact Tool to Discriminate Between Healthy Current and Former Smokers and to Explore the Effect of Switching Smokers to a Reduced Toxicant Prototype Cigarette.

Anuradha Kulasekaran, Christopher Proctor, Ermioni Papadopoulou, Christopher J Shepperd, Rick Guyer, Barbara Gandek, John E Ware

Open access · bronzeAbstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Anuradha KulasekaranGroup Research and Development, British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd, Southampton, United Kingdom; anuradha_kulasekaran@bat.com.
Christopher ProctorGroup Research and Development, British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd, Southampton, United Kingdom;
Ermioni PapadopoulouGroup Research and Development, British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd, Southampton, United Kingdom;
Christopher J ShepperdGroup Research and Development, British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd, Southampton, United Kingdom;
Rick GuyerJohn Ware Research Group, Worcester, MA;
Barbara GandekJohn Ware Research Group, Worcester, MA; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Medical School, Worcester, MA.
John E WareJohn Ware Research Group, Worcester, MA; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Medical School, Worcester, MA.
British American Tobacco (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USUniversity of Worcester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is well established in clinical research, but ceiling effects in validated tools might prevent detection of changes in well respondents. Tobacco Quality of Life Impact Tool (TQOLITv1) uses conceptual and psychometric advances to enhance detection of HRQoL changes.

methodsIn a 6-month, forced-switch study, the German TQOLITv1 was assessed in healthy adult (age 23-55 years) current and matched former-smokers. At baseline, smokers were switched to reduced toxicant prototype (RTP) or conventional cigarette for 6 months. TQOLITv1 responses were collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months from current smokers whilst former smokers completed it at the latter two time points. TQOLITv1 includes SF-36v2 and new smoking-specific, physical and general-health measures.

resultsReliability at baseline was good (Cronbach's coefficient alpha > 0.70) for all measures. The baseline percentage with the best possible score (ceiling effect) for former and current smokers was substantially better for the new physical function than SF-36 physical function measure (35% vs. 59% at ceiling, respectively). New smoking-specific measures discriminated current from former smokers better than general health measures. Smoking-specific symptoms (r = 0.73) were more stable from baseline to 6 months than other measures (r = 0.38-0.54) particularly more than the SF-36 mental component score (r = 0.24). Although both product smoking groups worsened in most HRQoL measures, changes in general and smoking-specific HRQoL impact measures favored RTP smokers.

conclusionsThe German TQOLITv1 is sufficiently reliable and valid to assess HRQoL and may be more useful than SF-36v2 in evaluation of interventions in well smoking populations including those consuming RTPs.

Indexed as

Health Status IndicatorsTobacco Use Cessation DevicesTranslatingAdultFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSingle-Blind MethodSmokingSmoking PreventionSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID25914263
PMCPMC4635856
OpenAlexW1978260595

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.