Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26843673›Full record

SynthesisPublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Inhaled Toxicants from Waterpipe and Cigarette Smoking.

Brian A Primack, Mary V Carroll, Patricia M Weiss, Alan L Shihadeh, Ariel Shensa, Steven T Farley, Michael J Fine, Thomas Eissenberg, Smita Nayak

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 122 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Influencing Perceptions of Harm of Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking Among One Member of Couples Who Use Waterpipe.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Trial
  3. Laboratory Analysis of FecalHealth science reports · 2026
    Article
  4. DNA methyltransferases expressions in mice tongue exposed to waterpipe smoke.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Brian A PrimackUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Mary V CarrollSquirrel Hill Health Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Patricia M WeissUniversity of Pittsburgh Health Sciences Library System, Pittsburgh, PA.
Alan L ShihadehAmerican University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Ariel ShensaUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Steven T FarleyUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Michael J FineVA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA.
Thomas EissenbergVirginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
Smita NayakSwedish Center for Research and Innovation, Swedish Health Services, Seattle, WA.
University of Pittsburgh · USAmerican University of Beirut · LBVA Pittsburgh Healthcare System · USVirginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking among U.S. Adolescents and Young AdultsR01CA140150 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI PRIMACK, BRIAN A. · 2010 to 2015
$2.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA140150NCI NIH HHS R01-CA140150
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWaterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) is an emerging trend worldwide. To inform public health policy and educational programming, we systematically reviewed the biomedical literature to compute the inhaled smoke volume, nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide (CO) associated with a single WTS session and a single cigarette.

methodsWe searched seven biomedical bibliographic databases for controlled laboratory or natural environment studies designed to mimic human tobacco consumption. Included studies quantified the mainstream smoke of a single cigarette and/or single WTS session for smoke volume, nicotine, tar, and/or CO. We conducted meta-analyses to calculate summary estimates for the inhalation of each unique substance for each mode of tobacco consumption. We assessed between-study heterogeneity using chi-squared and I-squared statistics.

resultsSufficient data from 17 studies were available to derive pooled estimates for inhalation of each exposure via each smoking method. Two researchers working independently abstracted measurement of smoke volume in liters, and nicotine, tar, and CO in milligrams. All numbers included in meta-analyses matched precisely between the two researchers (100% agreement, Cohen's k=1.00). Whereas one WTS session was associated with 74.1 liters of smoke inhalation (95% confidence interval [CI] 38.2, 110.0), one cigarette was associated with 0.6 liters of smoke (95% CI 0.5, 0.7). One WTS session was also associated with higher levels of nicotine, tar, and CO.

conclusionsOne WTS session consistently exposed users to larger smoke volumes and higher levels of tobacco toxicants compared with one cigarette. These computed estimates may be valuable to emphasize in prevention programming.

Indexed as

Carbon MonoxideHumansInhalation ExposureNicotineSmokingTarsCarbon MonoxideNicotineTars

Identifiers

PMID26843673
PMCPMC4716475
OpenAlexW2412262728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.