Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29059363›Full record

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

Consortium on Methods Evaluating Tobacco: Research Tools to Inform US Food and Drug Administration Regulation of Snus.

Micah L Berman, Warren K Bickel, Andrew C Harris, Mark G LeSage, Richard J O'Connor, Irina Stepanov, Peter G Shields, Dorothy K Hatsukami

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Micah L BermanCollege of Public Health, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Warren K BickelVirginia Tech Carilion Research Institute, Roanoke, VA.
Andrew C HarrisMinneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN.
Mark G LeSageMinneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN.
Richard J O'ConnorRoswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY.
Irina StepanovMasonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Peter G ShieldsComprehensive Cancer Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Dorothy K HatsukamiMasonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Funding

Designing a Comprehensive Framework for the Evaluation of Tobacco Product RisksK07CA197221 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI BERMAN, MICAH L. · 2016 to 2020
$820k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA197221
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has purview over tobacco products. To set policy, the FDA must rely on sound science, yet most existing tobacco research methods have not been designed to specifically inform regulation. The NCI and FDA-funded Consortium on Methods Evaluating Tobacco (COMET) was established to develop and assess valid and reliable methods for tobacco product evaluation. The goal of this article is to describe these assessment methods using a US manufactured "snus" as the test product. Methods: In designing studies that could inform FDA regulation, COMET has taken a multidisciplinary approach that includes experimental animal models and a range of human studies that examine tobacco product appeal, addictiveness, and toxicity. This article integrates COMET's findings over the last 4 years. Results: Consistency in results was observed across the various studies, lending validity to our methods. Studies showed low abuse liability for snus and low levels of consumer demand. Toxicity was less than cigarettes on some biomarkers but higher than medicinal nicotine. Conclusions: Using our study methods and the convergence of results, the snus that we tested as a potential modified risk tobacco product is likely to neither result in substantial public health harm nor benefit. Implications: This review describes methods that were used to assess the appeal, abuse liability, and toxicity of snus. These methods included animal, behavioral economics, consumer perception studies, and clinical trials. Across these varied methods, study results showed low abuse-liability and appeal of the snus product we tested. In several studies, demand for snus was lower than for less toxic nicotine gum. The consistency and convergence of results across a range of multi-disciplinary studies lends validity to our methods and suggests that promotion of snus as a modified risk tobacco products is unlikely to produce substantial public health benefit or harm.

Indexed as

Economics, BehavioralAnimalsHumansPublic HealthTobacco ProductsTobacco, SmokelessTobacco Use Cessation DevicesTobacco Use DisorderUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID29059363
PMCPMC6154989

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.