Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36090650›Full record

ArticleTobacco use insights2022

When Hotel Guests Complain About Tobacco, Electronic Cigarettes, and Cannabis: Lessons for Implementing Smoking Bans.

Elizabeth Ad Weigel, Georg E Matt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco use insights, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Elizabeth Ad WeigelDepartment of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.
Georg E MattDepartment of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We analyzed reviews on tripadvisor.com from a random sample of N = 477 hotels in ten large cities in the US to examine how well existing policies protect guests from exposure to tobacco, electronic cigarette, and cannabis (TEC) smoke. We examined the association between complaints per 100 reviews with hotel smoking policies, star rating, cost, brand, and location. Of all TEC complaints, 80% were associated with thirdhand smoke residue lingering in hotels from previous guests. Compared to the hotel brands with the best records, the two worst-performing brands had 3.4- and 3.6-times higher complaint rates (

Indexed as

cannabisconsumer complaintselectronic cigarettesenvironmental tobacco smokehospitalityhotelsinformation asymmetrysecondhand smokethirdhand smoke

Identifiers

PMID36090650
PMCPMC9449509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.