Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27050671›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

"May I Buy a Pack of Marlboros, Please?" A Systematic Review of Evidence to Improve the Validity and Impact of Youth Undercover Buy Inspections.

Joseph G L Lee, Kyle R Gregory, Hannah M Baker, Leah M Ranney, Adam O Goldstein

Abstract readSystematic ReviewValidation Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Evaluations of Compliance With California's First Tobacco Sales Bans and Tobacco Marketing in Restricted and Cross-Border Stores.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Youth source of acquisition for E-Cigarettes.Preventive medicine reports · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Comparison of Sampling Strategies for Tobacco Retailer Inspections to Maximize Coverage in Vulnerable Areas and Minimize Cost.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2018
    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

5 authors.

Joseph G L LeeDepartment of Health Education and Promotion, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, United States of America.
Kyle R GregoryTobacco Center of Regulatory Science, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Hannah M BakerTobacco Prevention and Evaluation Program, Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Leah M RanneyTobacco Prevention and Evaluation Program, Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Adam O GoldsteinTobacco Prevention and Evaluation Program, Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

Virology Research Program (Program 4)P30CA016086 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Deborah F. Tate · 1985 to 2026
$201.5M
Training & Education Program p294-308P50CA180907 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI RIBISL, KURT M. · 2013 to 2017
$20.2M
The Science of Decision Making: Connecting People and PolicyP50DA036128 · NIDA · GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI ERIKSEN, MICHAEL PAUL · 2013 to 2018
$19.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016086NCI NIH HHS P50 CA180907NCI NIH HHS P50CA18090701NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA036128NIDA NIH HHS P50DA036128
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most smokers become addicted to tobacco products before they are legally able to purchase these products. We systematically reviewed the literature on protocols to assess underage purchase and their ecological validity. We conducted a systematic search in May 2015 in PubMed and PsycINFO. We independently screened records for inclusion. We conducted a narrative review and examined implications of two types of legal authority for protocols that govern underage buy enforcement in the United States: criminal (state-level laws prohibiting sales to youth) and administrative (federal regulations prohibiting sales to youth). Ten studies experimentally assessed underage buy protocols and 44 studies assessed the association between youth characteristics and tobacco sales. Protocols that mimicked real-world youth behaviors were consistently associated with substantially greater likelihood of a sale to a youth. Many of the tested protocols appear to be designed for compliance with criminal law rather than administrative enforcement in ways that limited ecological validity. This may be due to concerns about entrapment. For administrative enforcement in particular, entrapment may be less of an issue than commonly thought. Commonly used underage buy protocols poorly represent the reality of youths' access to tobacco from retailers. Compliance check programs should allow youth to present themselves naturally and attempt to match the community's demographic makeup.

Indexed as

CommerceCrimeAdolescentHumansSmokingUnited States

Identifiers

PMID27050671
PMCPMC4822877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.