Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32356921›Full record

ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2020

A Method for Comparing the Impact on Carcinogenicity of Tobacco Products: A Case Study on Heated Tobacco Versus Cigarettes.

Wout Slob, Lya G Soeteman-Hernández, Wieneke Bil, Yvonne C M Staal, W Edryd Stephens, Reinskje Talhout

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Risk Assessment Models for Heated Tobacco Products.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Recent Trends in Cigarette and HTP Use in Japan: A Scoping Review.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Wout SlobNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Lya G Soeteman-HernándezNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3529-3694
Wieneke BilNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Yvonne C M StaalNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7187-0121
W Edryd StephensSchool of Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0884-8722
Reinskje TalhoutNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLUniversity of St Andrews · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comparing the harmful health effects related to two different tobacco products by applying common risk assessment methods to each individual compound is problematic. We developed a method that circumvents some of these problems by focusing on the change in cumulative exposure (CCE) of the compounds emitted by the two products considered. The method consists of six steps. The first three steps encompass dose-response analysis of cancer data, resulting in relative potency factors with confidence intervals. The fourth step evaluates emission data, resulting in confidence intervals for the expected emission of each compound. The fifth step calculates the change in CCE, probabilistically, resulting in an uncertainty range for the CCE. The sixth step estimates the associated health impact by combining the CCE with relevant dose-response information. As an illustrative case study, we applied the method to eight carcinogens occurring both in the emissions of heated tobacco products (HTPs), a novel class of tobacco products, and tobacco smoke. The CCE was estimated to be 10- to 25-fold lower when using HTPs instead of cigarettes. Such a change indicates a substantially smaller reduction in expected life span, based on available dose-response information in smokers. However, this is a preliminary conclusion, as only eight carcinogens were considered so far. Furthermore, an unfavorable health impact related to HTPs remains as compared to complete abstinence. Our method results in useful information that may help policy makers in better understanding the potential health impact of new tobacco and related products. A similar approach can be used to compare the carcinogenicity of other mixtures.

Indexed as

CarcinogensDose-Response Relationship, DrugElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsHot TemperatureHumansInhalation ExposureRisk AssessmentSmokeSmokingTobacco ProductsCarcinogensSmokeCarcinogenicitycumulative exposureheated tobaccorelative potencytobacco products

Identifiers

PMID32356921
PMCPMC7496151
OpenAlexW3023150210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.