Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29902305›Full record

Trial reportJAMA psychiatry2018

Nondaily Smokers' Changes in Cigarette Consumption With Very Low-Nicotine-Content Cigarettes: A Randomized Double-blind Clinical Trial.

Saul Shiffman, Brenda F Kurland, Sarah M Scholl, Jason M Mao

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02228824 (The Effect of Very-Low Nicotine Cigarettes on Smoking in Non-Daily Smokers), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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.

NCT02228824 nacompletednot on this map

The Effect of Very-Low Nicotine Cigarettes on Smoking in Non-Daily Smokers

TypeinterventionalSponsorSaul ShiffmanRan2015 to 2017Enrolled312ConditionsSmokingArmsVery low nicotine content cigarettes, Normal nicotine content cigarettes
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Educating the Public on the Health Risks of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes: Results From a US-Based Convenience Sample.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Trial
  8. An Evaluation of Potential Unintended Consequences of a Nicotine Product Standard: A Focus on Drinking History and Outcomes.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. 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
  13. Using Nicotine Gum to Assist Nondaily Smokers in Quitting: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Trial
  14. Effects of 6-Week Use of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes in Smokers With Serious Mental Illness.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019
    Trial
  15. 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
  16. Randomized Trial of Low-Nicotine Cigarettes and Transdermal Nicotine.American journal of preventive medicine · 2019
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. E-Liquid Flavor Availability Significantly Affects Cigarette and E-Liquid Purchasing in an Experimental Marketplace Simulating a Low Nicotine Product Standard.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Saul ShiffmanDepartment of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Brenda F KurlandUPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Sarah M SchollDepartment of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jason M MaoDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
University of Pittsburgh · USUPMC Hillman Cancer Center · US

Funding

VECTOR CORE FACILITYP30CA047904 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI CHRISTOPHER J. BAKKENIST · 1988 to 2026
$158.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA047904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration is considering limiting cigarettes to very low nicotine levels. Cigarette consumption of nondaily intermittent smokers (ITS), who compose one-third of US adult smokers, could feasibly increase or could be unaffected if their smoking is not motivated by nicotine seeking. Objective: To compare cigarette consumption in ITS receiving very low-nicotine-content cigarettes (VLNCCs) or identical normal-nicotine-content cigarettes (NNCCs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized double-blind clinical trial was conducted from June 2015 to July 2017 at a single US site. Volunteer ITS not planning to quit were recruited via media. Overall, 297 individuals enrolled, and 238 were randomized. Analyses were intent-to-treat. Interventions: After a 2-week baseline of smoking their own brand of cigarettes provided gratis, ITS were randomized to VLNCCs or NNCCs for 10 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of cigarettes per day (CPD) was assessed by real-time reporting, timeline follow-back reports, and cigarette butt counts. The primary outcome was change in CPD from baseline to weeks 9 to 10 of intervention, adjusting for baseline CPD. Results: The mean (SD) age of the 238 randomized participants was 37.9 (13.8) years. Of 238 participants, 108 (45%) were men. At baseline, the mean (SD) CPD was 3.1 (2.9). In intent-to-treat analyses using multiple imputation to address missing data, the VLNCC group had a mean decrease of 1.6 CPD (95% CI, 1.1-2.0; 51% of baseline) vs 0.05 decrease with NNCCs (95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4; 2% of baseline). Treatment group differences were not materially moderated by sex, race/ethnicity, or history of daily smoking. Cheating with conventional cigarettes, inferred from cotinine assays, was more common in the VLNCC group (OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.54-5.66), but sensitivity analyses showed significant VLNCC effects among the compliant participants as well. In longitudinal analysis of CPD over time with random intercept and slope, the VLNCC and NNCC groups differed significantly in both linear (-0.15; 95% CI, -0.22 to -0.08; P < .001) and quadratic (0.0026; 95% CI, 0.0010-0.0042; P = .002) trends: CPD dropped by 43.8% in the VLNCC group over 4 weeks, then leveled off thereafter. Abstinence (intent-to-treat, biochemically verified) in weeks 9 to 10 postrandomization did not differ significantly by treatment group (VLNCC, 10.2% vs NNNC, 5.0%; P = .28). Conclusions and Relevance: Switching to VLNCCs caused substantial smoking reduction among ITS but did not significantly increase abstinence. Response to a VLNCC intervention suggests that nicotine-seeking motivates ITS' smoking. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02228824.

Indexed as

NicotineOutcome Assessment, Health CareTobacco ProductsAdultCigarette SmokingDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSmoking CessationYoung AdultNicotine

Identifiers

PMID29902305
PMCPMC6233810
OpenAlexW2807768772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.