Observational studyBMC public health2015
Diarrhoea and smoking: an analysis of decades of observational data from Bangladesh.
Observational study in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dietary and Lifestyle Risk Factors in Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis: In Search of Mechanistic Explanations and Health Improvement.The Journal of nutrition · 2025Review
- Guideline for the assessment and management of gastrointestinal symptoms following colorectal surgery-A UEG/ESCP/EAES/ESPCG/ESPEN/ESNM/ESSO collaboration. Part I-Sequelae to oncological diseases.United European gastroenterology journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough cigarette smoking affects all biological systems of the human body including the gastrointestinal tract, there is a lack of evidence regarding its effect on the severity of diarrhoeal disease and whether a dose-response relationship exists. We therefore tested for the presence of specific causative pathogens for infectious diarrhoea, assessed the independent effect of smoking on its severity and tested whether any dose-response relationship existed while controlling for subjects' age, sociodemographic characteristics and presence of causative pathogens in an urban setting in Bangladesh.
methodsA total of 20,757 patients aged 15 years and above with diarrhoea were enrolled into the Diarrhoeal Disease Surveillance System, managed by the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh, from 1993 to 2012. We collected data on individuals' current daily consumption of cigarettes and bidis (traditional hand-rolled cigarettes) and conducted an ordered logistic regression to determine the effect of smoking on diarrhoeal disease severity and whether a dose-response relationship exists.
resultsWe identified 19 % of patients with diarrhoea as smokers, of whom 52 % smoked 1-9 cigarettes per day. While 97 % of smokers were male, 41 % were aged 15-30 years of age. Smokers were found to have a significantly lower severity of diarrhoeal disease (OR: 0.92, 95 % CI: 0.85-0.99, p = 0.025) after adjusting for age, wealth quintile, illiteracy and the presence of specific causative pathogens (Vibrio cholerae and Shigella). We observed no dose-response relationship between the number of cigarettes smoked per day and disease severity when adjusting for the same covariates. Smokers were more frequently infected with Shigella (7 vs. 6 %, p < 0.001) and less often with Vibrio cholerae (22 vs. 26 %, p < 0.001) than their non-smoking counterparts.
conclusionsThe aetiology and severity of diarrhoeal disease differed between smokers and non-smokers in our sample. However, we found no dose-response relationship between disease severity and the number of cigarettes smoked per day.
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.