ArticleTobacco induced diseases2023
Illusion of filtration: Evidence from tobacco industry documents.
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 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nitrosamine and nicotine exposure after switching from filtered to unfiltered cigarette smoking: a cross-over clinical trial.Tobacco control · 2026Trial
- Tackling the "Filter Fraud": A Call for Policy Action to Address Environmental and Health Harms Caused by Cigarette Filters.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Article
- Opposition to Banning Cigarette Filters and the Belief That Removing Filters Makes Cigarettes Much More Harmful Among Adults Who Smoke: Findings From the 2022 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Article
- The Effects of Filter Ventilation and Expanded Tobacco on the Tar, Nicotine and Carbon Monoxide Yields from Cigarettes Sold in Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe compared the design features of popular filtered and non-filtered cigarettes sold in the United States between 1960 and 1990, to assess the relationship between cigarette filter and tobacco weight.
methodsWe analyzed data on the design features of six popular filtered and three non-filtered cigarette brands sold in the US including the weight of tobacco used provided in the Cigarette Information Reports produced by Philip Morris Tobacco Company between 1960 and 1990. We also collected information on other design features such as stick length and circumference, the percentage of reconstituted tobacco in the blend, among other product parameters. We used joinpoint regression to test for trends in outcome variables for each brand assessed between 1960 and 1990.
resultsIn all years, filtered cigarettes had less tobacco by weight compared to non-filtered cigarettes. The lower average weight of tobacco found in filtered cigarettes appears to be due to a combination of factors including stick and filter length, and the amount of reconstituted tobacco in the blend. The average percentages of total alkaloids and expanded tobacco increased over time but were similar between filtered and non-filtered brands.
conclusionsWhile various design features of popular filtered and non-filtered brands changed between 1960 and 1990, the observed reduction in tobacco weight among filtered brands was perhaps the most salient in terms of disease risk. Less tobacco in a filtered cigarette calls into question the presumed exclusive role of cigarette filter tips in the reduced health risks of filtered versus non-filtered cigarette smoking.
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.