ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2023
Validating Wave 1 (2014) Urinary Cotinine and TNE-2 Cut-points for Differentiating Wave 4 (2017) Cigarette Use from Non-use in the United States Using Data from the PATH Study.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSex and racial/ethnic identity-specific cut-points for validating tobacco use using Wave 1 (W1) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study were published in 2020. The current study establishes predictive validity of the W1 (2014) urinary cotinine and total nicotine equivalents-2 (TNE-2) cut-points on estimating Wave 4 (W4; 2017) tobacco use.
methodsFor exclusive and polytobacco cigarette use, weighted prevalence estimates based on W4 self-report alone and with exceeding the W1 cut-point were calculated to identify the percentage missed without biochemical verification. Sensitivity and specificity of W1 cut-points on W4 self-reported tobacco use status were examined. ROC curves were used to determine the optimal W4 cut-points to distinguish past 30-day users from non-users, and evaluate whether the cut-points significantly differed from W1.
resultsAgreement between W4 self-reported use and exceeding the W1 cut-points was high overall and when stratified by demographic subgroups (0.7%-4.4% of use was missed if relying on self-report alone). The predictive validity of using the W1 cut-points to classify exclusive cigarette and polytobacco cigarette use at W4 was high (>90% sensitivity and specificity, except among polytobacco Hispanic smokers). Cut-points derived using W4 data did not significantly differ from the W1-derived cut-points [e.g., W1 exclusive = 40.5 ng/mL cotinine (95% confidence interval, CI: 26.1-62.8), W4 exclusive = 29.9 ng/mL cotinine (95% CI: 13.5-66.4)], among most demographic subgroups.
conclusionsThe W1 cut-points remain valid for biochemical verification of self-reported tobacco use in W4. IMPACT: Findings from can be used in clinical and epidemiologic studies to reduce misclassification of cigarette smoking status.
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.