ArticleTobacco prevention & cessation2020
Impact of menthol delivery methods on smoker sensory perceptions.
Article in Tobacco prevention & cessation, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Flavour capsule cigarette use and perceptions: a systematic review.Tobacco control · 2023Pooled it
- Smokers' support for the ban on sale of slim cigarettes in six European countries: findings from the EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys.Open research Europe · 2021Article
- Regulating flavours in cigarettes: A call to action.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMenthol can be added to cigarettes in several ways; these different delivery methods of menthol may lead to changes in sensory attributes, as well as perceived risk and appeal of these products.
methodsUsing a randomized, controlled study design, 18 current, established menthol smokers were asked to sample Camel Crush and Camel Menthol cigarette products, crushed and uncrushed. Smoking behavior, exhaled carbon monoxide, subjective ratings, and perceived risk measures were assessed for each product.
resultsCigarette Evaluation Scale relief of craving scores for participants' preferred brand (mean: 5.3, SE: 0.3) were significantly higher (p=0.012) than Camel Menthol crushed (mean: 4.6, SE: 0.3) as were the Sensory Scale satisfaction scores (preferred brand mean: 6.9, SE: 0.7 compared to Camel Menthol crushed mean: 5.1, SE: 0.6; p=0.004). In addition, the average Sensory Scale smoke strength scores for participants' preferred brand (mean: 6.9, SE: 0.5) was also significantly higher than Camel Crush crushed (mean: 5.0, SE: 0.5; p=0.022). There were no significant differences in smoking topography measures, CO boosts, or perceived risk between Camel Crush or Camel Menthol products.
conclusionsThe delivery method and amount of menthol present in cigarettes did not appear to affect short-term smoking behavior, sensory perceptions, or perceived product risk among a small sample of current established adult menthol smokers. It is possible that consumers of cigarette products may be attracted to the innovative technology of the crushable filter capsule as opposed to the taste experience, however, further research is needed.
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.