ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2020
Accuracy of Smoking Status Reporting: Proxy Information in a Rapidly Fatal Cancer Setting.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biochemical verification of tobacco use in ICU patients using point-of-care urinary cotinine.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Air-Liquid interface cultures to model drug delivery through the mucociliary epithelial barrier.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether patients and relatives can serve as reliable proxy reporters of other family members' cigarette-smoking history. PATIENTS AND
methodsTwo samples (325 patients, 707 relatives) were identified from the Mayo Clinic Biospecimen Resource for Pancreas Research, enrolled from November, 6, 2000, to March 15, 2018. Smoking-history data, including categorical (ever/never) and quantitative (packs per day and years smoked) smoking measures, were obtained from self-completed questionnaires by patients and relatives. Relative reports were compared with patient reports on self; patient reports were compared with relative reports on self.
resultsOverall, spouses and first-degree relatives (FDRs) were accurate (94.5%) when reporting patient ever smoking; spouse reports were 98.6% sensitive and 97.7% accurate. Accuracy of patient reports was 97.8% for spouse smoking and 85.5% for FDR smoking; accuracy varied by relationship of FDR. When not concordant, patients generally over-reported daily packs smoked by relatives and under-reported years smoked. Within a 25% agreement range, spouse reports about patients' daily packs smoked was 46.7%, and years smoked was 69.6%, whereas FDRs were 50% and 64.6%, respectively. When not concordant, relatives generally over-reported daily packs smoked by patients, but no consistent pattern was observed of over- or under-reporting years smoked by patients.
conclusionsPatients and relatives can be reliable proxies for smoking history (ever/never) in their family members, especially spouses. An accurate reporting of smoking status will help physicians to better gauge performance status and family smoking exposures to inform disease management.
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.