ArticleTobacco induced diseases2021
Machine-assessed tar yield marketing on cigarette packages from two cities in South Korea.
Article in Tobacco induced diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSouth Koreans continue to smoke at high rates. Tobacco manufacturers have a history of branding cigarettes with misleading descriptors including the introduction of low or ultra-low tar brand variants. The government bans traditional misleading descriptors (low, mild) but requires the presence of machine-assessed tar yields on cigarette packages. Literature suggests the presence of quantitative constituents can be misleading for smokers. We analyzed the machine-assessed tar value branding and the presence of additional branding that highlight tar levels on South Korean cigarette packs.
methodsIn August 2018, we analyzed 178 unique cigarette packs purchased in Seoul and Busan, South Korea using a systematic protocol. Cigarette packs were coded for tar levels and classified as ultra-low, low, mid, and high tar. The presence of misleading descriptors and any additional branding relating to tar or potentially indicating strength were also coded.
resultsMachine-assessed tar yields ranged from 0.1 to 8 mg. Cigarettes with a 1 mg machine-assessed tar yield accounted for 38% of all packs purchased. A majority (80%) of packs with tar values <3 mg had additional marketing present on the pack that highlighted tar yields, compared to 45% for packs with tar values 3 mg or greater. Many (85%) of the 1 mg packs and all of the 0.1 and 0.5 mg packs had additional marketing present that referenced tar levels.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that tobacco manufacturers are highlighting and reinforcing the tar yields of lower tar cigarettes by the deliberate use of tar level branding. These actions have the potential to mislead South Korean consumers that some cigarettes are less harmful than others. Strengthening of tobacco packaging regulations to prohibit references to tar yields on packs are needed to further protect consumers.
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.