Trial reportTobacco control2023
Switching people who smoke to unfiltered cigarettes: perceptions, addiction and behavioural effects in a cross-over randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Tobacco control, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03749876 (A Randomized Cross-over Clinical Trial of Unfiltered Cigarettes), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
A Randomized Cross-over Clinical Trial of Unfiltered Cigarettes
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nitrosamine and nicotine exposure after switching from filtered to unfiltered cigarette smoking: a cross-over clinical trial.Tobacco control · 2026Trial
- Effects of unventilated versus ventilated filtered cigarettes on smoking behaviour and biomarkers of smoke exposure in a randomised clinical trial.Tobacco control · 2026Article
- Cellulose acetate cigarette filter is hazardous to human health.Tobacco control · 2024Article
- Switching people who smoke to unfiltered cigarettes: Effects on smoking topography.Addictive behaviors reports · 2024Article
- Protecting public health and the environment: towards a general ban on cellulose acetate cigarette filters in the European Union.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBehavioural research is needed to inform a ban on sales of filtered cigarettes that could reduce plastic waste due to discarded filters. This study reports on differences in perceptions, nicotine dependence and behaviour among participants in a cross-over randomised trial of filtered compared with unfiltered cigarettes.
methodThis proof-of-concept study involved 43 people who smoke filtered cigarettes (41.9% women, mean age 36.7 years). Participants were provided 2 weeks' supply of filtered cigarettes, 2 weeks of the same brand of unfiltered cigarettes and randomly assigned to starting conditions. Measures included the Modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire; single-item cigarette perception questions; Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence; 7-day cigarette consumption, urinary cotinine and intention to quit. Analyses included linear and ordinal repeated measures mixed-effects models and paired t-tests.
resultsFiltered cigarettes were perceived as better tasting, more satisfying, more enjoyable, less aversive, less harsh, less potent and less negatively reinforcing than unfiltered cigarettes. Filtered cigarettes were smoked at a higher rate during the trial than unfiltered cigarettes (p
conclusionPeople who smoke perceived unfiltered cigarettes as having greater nicotine effects and less desirable sensory effects than filtered cigarettes, and they smoked fewer of these during the trial. Although cotinine, dependence and intention to quit were similar for smoking unfiltered and filtered cigarettes in this small trial, results suggest that banning the sale of filtered cigarettes might make smoking less attractive overall to people who smoke. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03749876.
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.