Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28666353›Full record

ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2018

Flavors and Risk: Perceptions of Flavors in Little Cigars and Cigarillos Among U.S. Adults, 2015.

Amy L Nyman, Kymberle L Sterling, Ban A Majeed, Dina M Jones, Michael P Eriksen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Relative Efficacy of Cigarillo Warning Statements in Text and Pictorial Formats: An Experimental Study Among a Sample of US Young Adults.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. What Is (Un)Flavored? A Scoping Review of the Conceptualization of Flavored Cigarillos.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Dissonance in Young Adult Cigarillo Users' Categorization of Concept Flavored and Unflavored Products.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Impact of Little Cigars and Cigarillos Packaging Features on Product Preference.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Amy L NymanTobacco Center of Regulatory Science (TCORS), School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
Kymberle L SterlingDivision of Health Promotion & Behavior, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
Ban A MajeedTobacco Center of Regulatory Science (TCORS), School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
Dina M JonesTobacco Center of Regulatory Science (TCORS), School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
Michael P EriksenDivision of Health Management & Policy, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Flavored little cigars, cigarillos, and filtered cigars (LCCs) are popular and pose unique health risks. This study explored risk perceptions of flavors in LCCs and the relationship between perceptions and use among U.S. adults. Methods: Data were from the 2015 Tobacco Products and Risk Perceptions Survey of a national probability sample of 6051 adults, conducted online, August-September, 2015. The analytic sample consisted of 5105 adults aware of LCCs and 2174 who had ever used any type of LCCs. Results: Just over half of adults reported flavors in LCCs as "very" or "somewhat" risky, while more than one-third of adults reported they did not know the risks of flavors in LCCs. Younger adults, males, and users of any LCCs were more likely than older adults, females and non-users, respectively, to perceive LCC flavors as less risky. Those who perceived LCC flavors as "not at all risky" or "a little risky" were roughly twice as likely to have ever used flavored LCCs compared to those who reported not knowing the risks (AOR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.16 to 3.69 and AOR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.26 to 3.06). Those who reported LCC flavors as "very risky" were also more likely to have ever used flavored LCCs than those who reported not knowing the risks (AOR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.98). Conclusions: Though the proportion of adults assigning low risk to flavors in LCCs is small, these adults are more likely to use flavored LCCs. The association of use with risk perceptions of flavors in LCCs should be addressed in health risk campaigns. Implications: Flavored LCCs are popular, particularly among young adults. While understanding the impact of flavors is an FDA research priority, little is currently known about perceptions of risk associated with flavors in LCCs. This study explores the nature of risk perceptions of flavors in LCCs, and the relationship between perceptions and flavored LCC use. We conclude that perception of risk of flavors in LCCs is related to use of these products, particularly perception of less risk. Considering the relationship between use and risk perceptions would be helpful in constructing health risk messaging.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAgedCannabisCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFlavoring AgentsHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk FactorsSmokersSmokingTobacco ProductsUnited StatesFlavoring Agents

Identifiers

PMID28666353
PMCPMC6093397

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.