ArticleTobacco induced diseases2023
Concordance assessment through comparison with urine cotinine: Does self-report adequately reflect passive smoking?
Article in Tobacco induced diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Secondhand tobacco exposure and risk of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Association between perceived exposure to secondhand smoke and depression independent of biomarker-measured exposure.BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is a paucity of studies evaluating passive smoking (PS) by comparing self-report (SR) and biomarkers. Our study aimed to confirm whether SR could accurately reflect PS compared to biomarkers, a golden standard for assessing the exposure of non-smokers.
methodsWe used the 2014-2020 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data and selected 29622 non-smokers aged >19 years as the study participants. The PS rate by SR was assessed during the last 7 days, and participants were interviewed to investigate their exposure at home, work, indoors, and in public places. In addition, participants having a limit of detection ≥0.5 ng/mL in urine cotinine (UC) was defined as the exposure group. All analyses reflected the weights of complex sampling. We first compared the rates of PS using biomarkers and SR, and then the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated based on biomarkers.
resultsPS exposure by UC was the highest (44.4%), and the exposure by SR was significantly lower (5.1-29.5%). Kappa and sensitivity in PS in the indoor home (HPS) were lower than those in indoor workplaces (WPS) and indoor public places (PPS). Moreover, overall sensitivity and PPV were lower, and specificity and NPV were relatively higher in accuracy. Lastly, the sensitivity was poor, and the specificity was relatively good, which means that measurement by SR would identify people who were actually exposed to PS as non-exposed.
conclusionsDespite exposure to PS, the use of the SR method is more likely to classify participants in the non-exposed group. Hence, to overcome measurement error in SR and reflect exposure in any place and setting, biomonitoring and SR should be performed.
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.