Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29251976›Full record

Trial reportExperimental and clinical psychopharmacology2017

Preliminary validity of the modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire in predicting the reinforcing effects of cigarettes that vary in nicotine content.

Christopher A Arger, Sarah H Heil, Stacey C Sigmon, Jennifer W Tidey, Maxine L Stitzer, Diann E Gaalema, Hanna J Durand, Janice Y Bunn, Elizabeth K Ruggieri, Stephen T Higgins

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

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

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

  1. Nicotine Reduction in Cigarettes: Literature Review and Gap Analysis.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Evaluating the Role of Nicotine Stereoisomer on Nicotine Pouch Abuse Liability: A Randomized Crossover Trial.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. The Impact of Reducing Nicotine Content on Adolescent Cigarette Smoking and Nicotine Exposure: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023
    Trial
  6. The Impact of Exclusive Use of Very Low Nicotine Cigarettes on Compensatory Smoking: An Inpatient Crossover Clinical Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Trial
  7. The Impact of Gradual and Immediate Nicotine Reduction on Subjective Cigarette Ratings.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Effects of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes and Nicotine Vaping Device Characteristics on Choices to Smoke, Vape, or Abstain in Early Young Adults.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Predictors of Adherence Among Vulnerable Populations of Adults Assigned to Smoke Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Comparing Smoking Topography and Subjective Measures of Usual Brand Cigarettes Between Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Smokers.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2018
    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

10 authors.

Christopher A ArgerVermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Sarah H HeilVermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Stacey C SigmonVermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Jennifer W TideyCenter for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University.
Maxine L StitzerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
Diann E GaalemaVermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Hanna J DurandVermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Janice Y BunnVermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Elizabeth K RuggieriVermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Stephen T HigginsVermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.

Funding

Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory ScienceP50DA036114 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI HIGGINS, STEPHEN T · 2013 to 2017
$19.1M
National Institute on Drug Abuse/U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationNIDA NIH HHS P50 DA036114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Validity studies evaluating self-report measures in relation to behavioral preference of cigarettes varying in nicotine content are needed. The current study examined the relationship between ratings on the modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire (mCEQ) and the relative reinforcing effects of Spectrum research cigarettes (15.8, 5.2, 2.4, 0.4 mg per gram of tobacco). Data for this secondary analysis were obtained from a double-blind study (Higgins et al., 2017) evaluating the subjective and reinforcing effects of Spectrum cigarettes under acute smoking abstinence. Current smokers (N = 26) were recruited from three vulnerable smoking populations (economically disadvantaged women of reproductive age, opioid-maintained individuals, individuals with affective disorders). In Phase 1 (five sessions), the mCEQ (Satisfaction, Psychological Reward, Enjoyment of Respiratory Tract Sensations, Craving Reduction, Aversion subscales) was administered following ad lib smoking of Spectrum cigarettes and subscale differences scores were calculated by subtracting ratings of the 15.8 mg/g cigarette from ratings of the reduced nicotine content cigarettes. In Phase 2 (six sessions), participants completed six 2-dose concurrent choice tests. The relationship between mCEQ subscale difference scores from Phase 1 and nicotine dose choice from Phase 2 was examined using mixed-model repeated-measures analyses of variance. Higher Satisfaction and lower Aversion subscale difference scores were associated with choosing the 15.8 mg/g cigarette more than the 5.2, 2.4, and 0.4 mg/g cigarettes. Scores on the other mCEQ subscales were not associated with nicotine choice. These results provide support for validity of the mCEQ Satisfaction and Aversion subscales predicting the relative reinforcing effects and abuse liability of varying nicotine content cigarettes. (PsycINFO Database Record

Indexed as

Smoking CessationSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleNicotineNicotinic AgonistsOutcome Assessment, Health CarePersonal SatisfactionPredictive Value of TestsReinforcement, PsychologyReproducibility of ResultsSmokingNicotineNicotinic Agonists

Identifiers

PMID29251976
PMCPMC5737747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.