SynthesisNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2016
Mathematical Modeling in Tobacco Control Research: Initial Results From a Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers, 3 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identifying best modelling practices for tobacco control policy simulations: a systematic review and a novel quality assessment framework.Tobacco control · 2023Pooled it
- Informing policy makers on the efficiency of population level tobacco control interventions in Asia: A systematic review of model-based economic evaluations.Journal of global health · 2020Pooled it
- Medical costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with smoking: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2016Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Four Tobacco Control Interventions in Mongolia.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023Article
- Healthy People Countdown 2030: reaching 5% cigarette smoking prevalence among US adults through state cigarette excise tax increases.Tobacco control · 2023Article
- Modeling cigarette smoking disparities between people with and without serious psychological distress in the US, 1997-2100.Preventive medicine · 2023Article
- A Decision-Theoretic Public Health Framework for Heated Tobacco and Nicotine Vaping Products.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Cancer systems epidemiology: Overcoming misconceptions and integrating systems approaches into cancer research.PLoS medicine · 2022Article
- Estimated Prevalence of Smoking and Smoking-Attributable Mortality Associated With Graphic Health Warnings on Cigarette Packages in the US From 2022 to 2100.JAMA health forum · 2021Article
- Tobacco Control Policy Simulation Models: Protocol for a Systematic Methodological Review.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Estimating the Population Health Impact of Recently Introduced Modified Risk Tobacco Products: A Comparison of Different Approaches.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021Review
- What is the likely impact on surgical site infections in Australian hospitals if smoking rates are reduced? A cost analysis.PloS one · 2021Article
- Overview of tobacco use transitions for population health.Tobacco control · 2020Article
- Risk Assessment for Tobacco Regulation.Tobacco regulatory science · 2019Article
- Estimates of effectiveness and reach for 'return on investment' modelling of smoking cessation interventions using data from England.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2018Article
- Projecting the effects of tobacco control policies in the USA through microsimulation: a study protocol.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Application of Discrete-Choice Experiment Methods in Tobacco Control: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe US Food and Drug Administration has expressed interest in using mathematical models to evaluate potential tobacco policies. The goal of this systematic review was to synthesize data from tobacco control studies that employ mathematical models.
methodsWe searched five electronic databases on July 1, 2013 to identify published studies that used a mathematical model to project a tobacco-related outcome and developed a data extraction form based on the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices. We developed an organizational framework to categorize these studies and identify models employed across multiple papers. We synthesized results qualitatively, providing a descriptive synthesis of included studies.
resultsThe 263 studies in this review were heterogeneous with regard to their methodologies and aims. We used the organizational framework to categorize each study according to its objective and map the objective to a model outcome. We identified two types of study objectives (trend and policy/intervention) and three types of model outcomes (change in tobacco use behavior, change in tobacco-related morbidity or mortality, and economic impact). Eighteen models were used across 118 studies.
conclusionsThis paper extends conventional systematic review methods to characterize a body of literature on mathematical modeling in tobacco control. The findings of this synthesis can inform the development of new models and the improvement of existing models, strengthening the ability of researchers to accurately project future tobacco-related trends and evaluate potential tobacco control policies and interventions. These findings can also help decision-makers to identify and become oriented with models relevant to their work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25977409What 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.