Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33618196›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol dependence2021

Comparing video observation to electronic topography device as a method for measuring cigarette puffing behavior.

Melissa Mercincavage, Joshua L Karelitz, Catherine L Kreider, Valentina Souprountchouk, Benjamin Albelda, Andrew A Strasser

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. SmokeMon: Unobtrusive Extraction of Smoking Topography Using Wearable Energy-Efficient Thermal.Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies · 2022
    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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Melissa MercincavageCenter for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States; University of Pennsylvania-Rutgers University Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, Philadelphia, PA, United States. Electronic address: melmer@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Joshua L KarelitzDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Publich Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Catherine L KreiderCenter for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Valentina SouprountchoukCenter for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Benjamin AlbeldaCenter for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Andrew A StrasserCenter for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States; University of Pennsylvania-Rutgers University Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
University of Pennsylvania · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

Tobacco Industry Marketing CoreU54CA229973 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI STRASSER, ANDREW A · 2018 to 2022
$18.8M
UPENN TCORS: Tobacco Product Messaging in a Complex Communication EnvironmentP50CA179546 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HORNIK, ROBERT C. · 2013 to 2017
$18.7M
Translational Research Training in Cancer Prevention and ControlT32CA186873 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Kathryn H. Schmitz, Jian-Min Yuan · 2014 to 2026
$2.7M
Laboratory-based Approaches to Understanding the Impact of Low Nicotine Content Cigarette Marketing on Young AdultsK07CA218366 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MERCINCAVAGE, MELISSA · 2018 to 2022
$767k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA218366NCI NIH HHS P50 CA179546NCI NIH HHS T32 CA186873NCI NIH HHS U54 CA229973
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmoking topography, or puffing behavior, is an important measure of how consumers may use tobacco products. However, numerous issues may prevent collection of this data via in-person, electronic topography device (e.g., CReSS). This study compared cigarette topography measures collected by video observation and electronic device.

methodsLaboratory smoking sessions were video recorded and scored for 96 cigarettes collected from 34 daily, adult non-treatment-seeking smokers (73.5 % male, 82.4 % White). Participants smoked three of their preferred brand cigarettes using an electronic topography device, providing carbon monoxide (CO) samples before and after each cigarette. Analyses compared measures from both assessment methods and examined associations with device-obtained total puff volume and CO boost.

resultsAgreement analyses indicated robust similarity between methods for measures of puff count and total interpuff interval (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC]'s > 0.96,p's < 0.001; Bland-Altman [B-A] plotted differences within a priori limit of clinical significance) but diverged on total duration (ICC's > .93, p's < .001, yet B-A plots outside a priori limits). Regardless of assessment method, total duration and puff count (but not total interpuff interval) predicted total puff volume (p's < .001). None predicted CO boost (p's = .07-.90)."

conclusionsAlthough some topography outcomes (e.g., total puff volume) cannot be assessed via video observation, video-observed measures of puff count, total duration, and total interpuff interval are generally interchangeable with their topography device-obtained counterparts. Thus, video observation is likely a sufficient substitute method for assessing cigarette topography when using an electronic device is not possible.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsVideo RecordingAdultBehavior Observation TechniquesCarbon MonoxideCigarette SmokingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSmokersSurveys and QuestionnairesTobacco ProductsCarbon MonoxideCigarette topographyPuffing behaviorSmoking behaviorVideo observation

Identifiers

PMID33618196
PMCPMC8026715
OpenAlexW3131071430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.