Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31254537›Full record

ArticleBehavioural brain research2019

Comparison of cigarette, little cigar, and waterpipe tobacco smoke condensate and e-cigarette aerosol condensate in a self-administration model.

Julie A Marusich, Jenny L Wiley, Melanie A R Silinski, Brian F Thomas, Steven E Meredith, Robert F Gahl, Kia J Jackson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioural brain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Experimenter administered ΔPharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julie A MarusichCenter for Drug Discovery, RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Rd, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA. Electronic address: jmarusich@rti.org.
Jenny L WileyCenter for Drug Discovery, RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Rd, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Melanie A R SilinskiAnalytical Sciences, RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Rd, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Brian F ThomasAnalytical Chemistry and Pharmaceutics, RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Rd, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Steven E MeredithU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco Products, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Robert F GahlU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco Products, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Kia J JacksonU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco Products, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
RTI International · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · US

Funding

Intramural FDA HHS FD999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pharmacological effects of tobacco products are primarily mediated by nicotine; however, research suggests that several non-nicotine tobacco constituents may alter the reinforcing effects of nicotine. This study evaluated the reinforcing effects of aqueous solutions of smoke/aerosol condensate from cigarettes, little cigars, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), and waterpipe tobacco in a self-administration procedure to determine if abuse liability of these tobacco products differed. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 64 total) were trained to self-administer intravenous nicotine (30 μg/kg/infusion) on a fixed ratio 5 schedule of reinforcement. Following nicotine dose-effect assessment (1, 7.5, 15, and 30 μg/kg/infusion), rats were given access to smoke/aerosol condensate derived from their assigned tobacco product. Rats responded for smoke/aerosol condensate containing 1, 7.5, 15, and 30 μg/kg/infusion nicotine, with the ratio of nicotine:non-nicotine constituents held constant across doses for each tobacco product. Responding for nicotine or smoke/aerosol condensate was also assessed on a progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement. Cigarette, little cigar, and e-cigarette smoke/aerosol condensates shifted the nicotine dose-effect curve leftward, whereas waterpipe tobacco smoke condensate shifted the dose-effect curve rightward. Smoke/aerosol condensate from all tobacco products produced similar levels of responding compared to nicotine alone during the progressive ratio phase. Results suggest that non-nicotine constituents in cigarettes, little cigars, and e-cigarettes differentially enhance nicotine's reinforcing potency. In contrast, waterpipe tobacco blunted nicotine's reinforcing potency, suggesting that it may contain unique constituents that dampen nicotine's reinforcing effects.

Indexed as

AerosolsAnimalsElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsMaleNicotineRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyReinforcement, PsychologySelf AdministrationSmokingSmoking DevicesTobacco ProductsTobacco, WaterpipeAerosolsNicotineCigaretteE-cigaretteLittle cigarNicotineSelf-AdministrationWaterpipe tobacco

Identifiers

PMID31254537
PMCPMC6664429
OpenAlexW2955162889

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.