ArticleAddictive behaviors2019
Lack of utility of cigarettes per day cutoffs for clinical and laboratory smoking research.
Article in Addictive behaviors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptance and preferences for different nicotine substitute products to reduce tobacco smoking in people living with HIV: Results from an internal pilot study of a randomized trial.Tobacco induced diseases · 2026Article
- Associations between tobacco smoking and mortality: a sex-stratified cohort analysis.European journal of public health · 2025Article
- Biochemical validation of self-reported electronic nicotine delivery system and tobacco heaviness of use.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2023Article
- Association Between Cigarette Smoking Frequency and Tobacco Use Disorder in U.S. Adults.American journal of preventive medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMost clinical and laboratory smoking research studies require that participants smoke at a certain level to be eligible for enrollment. However, there is limited evidence that use of these cutoffs differentiates groups of smokers along clinically meaningful criteria.
methodsUsing receiver operating characteristic curves, we analyzed data from daily smokers in the National Epidemiologic Study of Alcohol Use and Related Conditions - III (NESARC-III) to examine the utility of smoking rates for determining whether participants met DSM-5 criteria for tobacco use disorder, experienced nicotine withdrawal or had a history of failed quit attempts. We also examined whether relationships between these variables differed as a function of key sample characteristics.
resultsSmoking rate exhibited a weak relationship with the presence of tobacco use disorder (AUC = 0.664), whether individuals experience nicotine withdrawal (AUC = 0.672) and whether individuals had a history of failed quit attempts (AUC = 0.578). The relationship between smoking rate and a history of failed quit attempts was weaker for women than men (p < .05). Otherwise, utility did not differ as a function of sex, race/ethnicity, education, income, or use of multiple tobacco products. Optimal cutoffs varied somewhat across indices, but the largest number of correct classifications occurred at very low smoking rates.
conclusionsResearchers should consider abandoning the use of smoking rate cutoffs to determine study eligibility. If smoking rate cutoffs are used, a rationale should be presented along with justification for the specific cutoff chosen.
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.