ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2018
Nicotine and cotinine in oral fluid: Passive exposure vs active smoking.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Modifiable, Non-Modifiable, and Physiological Risk Factors of Non-Communicable Diseases in Indonesia: Evidence from the 2018 Indonesian Basic Health Research.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2022Article
- Recent Developments in the Determination of Biomarkers of Tobacco Smoke Exposure in Biological Specimens: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.