Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30009247›Full record

ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2018

Nicotine and cotinine in oral fluid: Passive exposure vs active smoking.

Sheng Feng, Oneka Cummings, Gregory McIntire

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

3 authors.

Sheng FengAmeritox LLC, 486 Gallimore Dairy Rd, Greensboro, NC 27409, United States.
Oneka CummingsInsource Diagnostics, 231 W. Chestnut Ave, Monrovia, CA 91016, United States.
Gregory McIntireAmeritox LLC, 486 Gallimore Dairy Rd, Greensboro, NC 27409, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scheidweiler and colleagues have clinically tested and identified a reporting cutoff (10 ng/mL) of nicotine and cotinine in oral fluid that could reliably determine active smoking in patients. The results from that study were reevaluated using a large data set of oral fluid nicotine and cotinine results available from pain medication monitoring. Additionally, test results from patients using a nicotine transdermal patch delivery device are compared with those from smokers. Finally, oral fluid test results collected over a 2-year period were normalized and transformed to yield a near Gaussian distribution for nicotine. The normalized and transformed data reveal the presence of two independent populations: a larger population consistent with active smokers and a smaller population consistent with those passively exposed to smoke. Furthermore, application of this model to patients prescribed transdermal nicotine reveals oral fluid levels consistent with those of active smokers. The clinical delineation of smokers from non-smokers reported earlier is supported by the oral fluid nicotine data modelling presented herein. These data indicate that oral fluid is an acceptable sample matrix for determining the smoking status of patients. Further, these data indicate that oral fluid test results are indistinguishable between patients prescribed transdermal patches and active smokers; however, oral fluid testing can determine absence of patches or smoking.

Indexed as

CotinineNicotineOral fluidSmokingTransdermal

Identifiers

PMID30009247
PMCPMC6041420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.