ArticleF1000Research2021
Heterogeneity and other problems in a pooled analysis of snus use and mortality.
Article in F1000Research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Swedish smokeless tobacco and its impact on oral health: a systematic review.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent analysis of Swedish snus use and mortality combined eight Swedish datasets and found that exclusive Swedish male snus users have statistically significant increased mortality from all causes, cardiovascular diseases and other causes. These findings, from the Swedish Collaboration on Health Effects of Snus Use, are in sharp contrast with previous pooled results from the same group. The discrepant results may be indicative of unresolved statistical problems that haven't been addressed by the collaboration authors in any of their studies. The most important problem is unresolved heterogeneity among the eight cohorts, which we describe in detail, and we show how the use of the random effects method by the authors was not sufficient. We explain why the tables in the article are uninformative, and we demonstrate why the exclusion of smokers in the analysis was not validated and eliminated important information. Finally, we strongly recommend some straightforward and easily implemented corrective measures.
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.