Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32432187›Full record

ReviewTobacco prevention & cessation2017

Standardized packaging and illicit tobacco use: A systematic review.

Catherine Haighton, Catherine Taylor, Ailsa Rutter

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tobacco prevention & cessation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 94% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Catherine HaightonNorthumbria University, UK.
Catherine TaylorFresh Smoke Free North East.
Ailsa RutterFresh Smoke Free North East.
Northumbria University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTo systematically review the evidence regarding the effect of standardized packaging on illicit tobacco use.

methodsData sources were EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, PsycInfo, Medline, and the British Library catalogue, from 01/01/1987 to 28/11/2016. Reference lists of included studies were hand searched for additional papers. Search strategies were based on the terms 'tobacco', 'packaging' and 'illicit'. The search was restricted to English language references. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts for empirical studies that addressed the topic of standardized packaging and illicit tobacco use. This resulted in 153 full text papers retrieved for screening. Following exclusions, ten papers were included in the review. Two reviewers' extracted data using piloted standardized data extraction forms. Studies were assessed for quality and relevance using CASP.

resultsThere was little homogeneity between included studies, so a narrative synthesis was employed. Of the relevant studies five reported smokers did not intend to or actually purchase further illicit tobacco following standardized packaging, although one suggested a small number of responders to online news felt smokers would be more inclined to purchase illicit tobacco, following standardized packaging. Two studies reported retailers did not intend to or actually increase sales of illicit tobacco following standardized packaging. Finally, two studies reported industry data on illicit tobacco were of poor quality and not supported by independent data.

conclusionsThere were few studies examining tobacco standardized packaging and illicit trade, however those available showed no evidence that standardized packaging could lead to increases in illicit trade.

Indexed as

illicit tradePlain packagingtobacco

Identifiers

PMID32432187
PMCPMC7232822
OpenAlexW2612097979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.