ArticlePloS one2018
Brand switching and toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke: A national study.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Greenwashed Cigarette Ad Text and Imagery Produce Inaccurate Harm, Addictiveness, and Nicotine Content Perceptions: Results From a Randomized Online Experiment.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Trial
- Communicating about chemicals in cigarette smoke: impact on knowledge and misunderstanding.Tobacco control · 2020Trial
- Sociodemographic and Smoking Characteristics Associated With Low Perceived Harm of "Organic" and "Additive-Free" Tobacco Products Among US Adults.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Article
- A Paper-Based Biomimetic Sensing Device for the Discrimination of Original and Fraudulent Cigarette Brands Using Mixtures of MoSBiosensors · 2023Article
- Chlorine, chromium, proteins of oxidative stress and DNA repair pathways are related to prognosis in oral cancer.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Nicotine dependence treatment: provision of a dedicated programme by the National Addictions Management Service.Singapore medical journal · 2020Article
- Research on Youth and Young Adult Tobacco Use, 2013-2018, From the Food and Drug Administration-National Institutes of Health Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020Review
- Smokers Awareness and Risk Perceptions of Filter Ventilation.Tobacco regulatory science · 2020Article
- Similarities and Differences in Tobacco Control Research Findings From Convenience and Probability Samples.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionUS law requires disclosure of quantities of toxic chemicals (constituents) in cigarette smoke by brand and sub-brand. This information may drive smokers to switch to cigarettes with lower chemical quantities, under the misperception that doing so can reduce health risk. We sought to understand past brand-switching behavior and whether learning about specific chemicals in cigarette smoke increases susceptibility to brand switching.
methodsParticipants were US adult smokers surveyed by phone (n = 1,151, probability sample) and online (n = 1,561, convenience sample). Surveys assessed whether smokers had ever switched cigarette brands or styles to reduce health risk and about likelihood of switching if the smoker learned their brand had more of a specific chemical than other cigarettes. Chemicals presented were nicotine, carbon monoxide, lead, formaldehyde, arsenic, and ammonia.
resultsPast brand switching to reduce health risk was common among smokers (43% in phone survey, 28% in online survey). Smokers who were female, over 25, and current "light" cigarette users were more likely to have switched brands to reduce health risks (all p < .05). Overall, 61-92% of smokers were susceptible to brand switching based on information about particular chemicals. In both samples, lead, formaldehyde, arsenic, and ammonia led to more susceptibility to switch than nicotine (all p < .05).
conclusionsMany US smokers have switched brands or styles to reduce health risks. The majority said they might or would definitely switch brands if they learned their cigarettes had more of a toxic chemical than other brands. Brand switching is a probable unintended consequence of communications that show differences in smoke chemicals between brands.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.