Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28579844›Full record

ArticleTobacco use insights2017

Health Effects of Waterpipe Tobacco Use: Getting the Public Health Message Just Right.

Mohammed Ali, Mohammed Jawad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco use insights, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Waterpipe Tobacco Warnings: An Experimental Study Among a Nationally Representative Sample of US Young Adults.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Substance use & misuse · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. "Scary and Effective, Definitely Pushes Me to Quit Smoking": Developing Waterpipe Pictorial Health Warnings Targeting Young Adults in Lebanon.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

2 authors.

Mohammed AliNorthwick Park Hospital, Harrow, UK.
Mohammed JawadDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many public health messages benchmark the harms of waterpipe tobacco against those of cigarettes, usually using numerical magnitudes of risk. This approach, although well intentioned, could be perceived as alarmist, damaging scientific credibility, and giving an unintended impression that one tobacco product is less harmful than the other. This commentary makes clear the harm waterpipe tobacco smoking poses to public health by describing its mechanism of use, consumption uptake, toxicologic profile, and documented health outcomes, as well as challenge existing thinking that toxicologic assessments are the most appropriate way to frame waterpipe tobacco health promotion messages. How can we describe the health effects of waterpipe tobacco without undermining its toxicity nor falling into the temptation of alarmist messaging? Several recommendations are provided.

Indexed as

health educationhealth promotionhookahshishatobaccotobacco productstoxicologyWater pipe

Identifiers

PMID28579844
PMCPMC5428225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.