Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26292701›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2016

Tobacco companies' efforts to undermine ingredient disclosure: the Massachusetts benchmark study.

Clayton Velicer, Stella Aguinaga-Bialous, Stanton Glantz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Public Understanding of Cigarette Smoke Chemicals: Longitudinal Study of US Adults and Adolescents.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Clayton VelicerCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, San Francisco, California, USA.
Stella Aguinaga-BialousCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, San Francisco, California, USA Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, San Francisco, California, USA.
Stanton GlantzCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, San Francisco, California, USA Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, San Francisco, California, USA Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California, USA Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

ANALYSIS OF TOBACCO INDUSTRY DOCUMENTSR01CA087472 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LING, PAMELA MAY · 2000 to 2018
$12.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA087472
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the 'Massachusetts Benchmark Study' (MBS) that the tobacco companies presented to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) in 1999 in response to ingredient disclosure regulations in the state. This case study can inform future ingredient disclosure regulations, including implementation of Articles 9 and 10 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

methodsWe analysed documents available at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu to identify internal communications regarding the design and execution of the MBS and internal studies on the relationship between tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide and smoke constituents and reviewed publications that further evaluated data published as part of the MBS.

resultsThe companies conducted extensive studies of cigarette design factors and ingredients that significantly impacted the levels of constituents. While this study asserted that by-brand emissions could be estimated reliably from published tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide levels, the tobacco companies were well aware that factors beyond tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide influenced levels of constituents included in the study. This severely limited the potential usefulness of the MBS predictor equations.

conclusionsDespite promises to provide data that would allow regulators to predict constituent data for all brands on the market, the final MBS results offered no useful predictive information to inform regulators, the scientific community or consumers. When implementing FCTC Articles 9 and 10, regulatory agencies should demand detailed by-brand information on tobacco product constituents and toxin deliveries to users.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingCarbon MonoxideDisclosureHumansMassachusettsNicotineSmokeTarsTobacco IndustryTobacco ProductsCarbon MonoxideNicotineSmokeTarstobacco tarPublic policySurveillance and monitoringTobacco industry documentsToxicology

Identifiers

PMID26292701
PMCPMC4761334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.