Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38316758›Full record

SynthesisNature communications2024

Health effects associated with chewing tobacco: a Burden of Proof study.

Gabriela F Gil, Jason A Anderson, Aleksandr Aravkin, Kayleigh Bhangdia, Sinclair Carr, Xiaochen Dai, Luisa S Flor, Simon I Hay, Matthew J Malloy, Susan A McLaughlin and 8 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Antivenom slithers back to life.Nature biotechnology · 2024
    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

18 authors.

Gabriela F GilInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jason A AndersonInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Aleksandr AravkinInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kayleigh BhangdiaInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Sinclair CarrInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0421-3145
Xiaochen DaiInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0289-7814
Luisa S FlorInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6888-512X
Simon I HayInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0611-7272
Matthew J MalloyInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Susan A McLaughlinInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Erin C MullanyInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Christopher J L MurrayInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4930-9450
Erin M O'ConnellInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Chukwuma OkerekeInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Reed J D SorensenInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Joanna WhisnantInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Peng ZhengInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Emmanuela GakidouInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. gakidou@uw.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8992-591X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chewing tobacco use poses serious health risks; yet it has not received as much attention as other tobacco-related products. This study synthesizes existing evidence regarding the health impacts of chewing tobacco while accounting for various sources of uncertainty. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of chewing tobacco and seven health outcomes, drawing on 103 studies published from 1970 to 2023. We use a Burden of Proof meta-analysis to generate conservative risk estimates and find weak-to-moderate evidence that tobacco chewers have an increased risk of stroke, lip and oral cavity cancer, esophageal cancer, nasopharynx cancer, other pharynx cancer, and laryngeal cancer. We additionally find insufficient evidence of an association between chewing tobacco and ischemic heart disease. Our findings highlight a need for policy makers, researchers, and communities at risk to devote greater attention to chewing tobacco by both advancing tobacco control efforts and investing in strengthening the existing evidence base.

Indexed as

Tobacco, SmokelessFemaleHumansMaleMouth NeoplasmsNeoplasmsRisk FactorsStroke

Identifiers

PMID38316758
PMCPMC10844244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.