ArticlePsychopharmacology2020
Differences in acute reinforcement across reduced nicotine content cigarettes.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Regulatory Approaches and Implementation of Minimally Addictive Combusted Products.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022Pooled it
- Acute nicotine reinforcement requires ability to discriminate the stimulus effects of nicotine.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2022Review
- Acute subjective sensory perceptions predict relative reinforcing effects of smoked nicotine.Addictive behaviors · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleThe smallest difference in nicotine that can change a smoker's cigarette preference is not clearly known.
objectiveA procedure to efficiently identify the difference in nicotine needed to change cigarette preference could help inform research to gauge effects of a nicotine reduction policy.
methodsUsing a within-subject design, we assessed preference for research cigarettes varying in nicotine contents (NIC; 18.7, 10.8, 5.3, 2.3, and 1.3 mg/g of tobacco), relative to a very low nicotine cigarette (VLNC; 0.4 mg/g), in 17 adult-dependent non-menthol smokers abstinent overnight. Only one NIC was compared vs. the VLNC per session, with order of the five NIC contents randomized across sessions on five separate days. Preference for each NIC vs. VLNC was determined by validated forced choice procedure, with those NIC chosen more than VLNC indicating greater reinforcement due to greater nicotine per se. Secondarily, less preference for lower NIC (vs. VLNC), relative to choice for the highest NIC, 18.7 mg/g (vs. VLNC), indexed reduced reinforcement.
resultsOverall, NIC choices increased as their nicotine increased, as anticipated. Relative to the 0.4 mg/g VLNC, choice was greater for NIC ≥ 5.3 mg/g but not ≤ 2.3 mg/g. Correspondingly, relative to choice for 18.7 mg/g, choice was less for NIC ≤ 2.3 mg/g but not ≥ 5.3 mg/g.
conclusionsAlthough replication with larger samples and longer access is needed, results indicate that nicotine reduction to ≤ 2.3 mg/g in cigarettes would attenuate reinforcement. This choice procedure may efficiently inform future clinical trials to assess relative reinforcing effects of smoking reduced nicotine cigarettes.
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.