ArticleHarm reduction journal2020
The greater use of flavoured snus among ever-smokers versus never-smokers in Norway.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative disease risks associated with cigarette smoking and use of moist smokeless tobacco and snus: an umbrella review of epidemiological evidence from the United States and Western Europe.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- The Short-term Impact of Standardised Packaging on Smoking and Snus Use in Norway.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSimilar to the debate around e-cigarettes, an increase in snus use among Norwegian adolescents has prompted debate on whether flavour options in snus should be limited. To this end, we compared use of flavoured snus among snus users with different smoking status.
methodsQuestions about flavoured snus use were included in an online omnibus study conducted from 2015 to 2019 (N = 65,445) that included 16,295 ever snus users (aged 15+). Current snus users (N = 9783) were asked "Do you usually use snus that has a flavouring (liquorice, mint, wintergreen, etc.)? Adjusted predicted probabilities and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from a logistic regression model.
resultsLess than 25% of the snus users reported never having smoked. The overall probability of using flavoured snus was .45 (95% CI .44-.46), highest among daily (.51, 95% CI .47-.54) and former daily smokers (.50, 95% CI .48-.52), and lowest among never (.41, 95% CI .39-.43) and occasional smokers without any prior history of daily smoking (.41, 95% CI .38-.44). Use of flavoured products was higher among female snus users (p = .67, 95% CI .65-.69) compared to males (p = .35, 95% CI .34-.36), highest among the youngest age group, 15-24 years (p = .58, 95% CI .56-.60) and decreased with increasing age.
conclusionRegulation that would ban or limit flavoured snus use may affect smokers-an at risk population-more than never smokers. The health authorities should be mindful of the real-world complexity governing potential harms and benefits of flavour restrictions on snus. A further assessment of flavour limitations should acknowledge that flavoured snus products also function as alternatives to 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.