ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2024
Article in Frontiers in toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nicotine pouches: an aid in smoking cessation, or a new public health hazard?Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- The potential of smoke-free products to reduce harm for smokers: what does the toxicological evidence say?Internal and emergency medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Modern oral nicotine pouch products (ONPs) are a category of oral nicotine products which contain pharmaceutical-grade nicotine, flavors, and other food-grade ingredients but no tobacco leaf. Recent reports indicate that ONPs in general do not contain (or only at minimal levels) the harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) identified in cigarette smoke, suggesting their potential as alternative products for reducing harm from cigarette smoking. Methods: We assessed Results: The MO test products 1-7 ZYN wintergreen, and General Snus white mint were negative for mutagenicity (Ames assay), genotoxicity (ivMN), and cytotoxicity (NRU). The combustible cigarette was positive in all three assays. The MO-8 test product was negative for mutagenicity; however, it was positive in the ivMN and NRU assays at concentrations either 42 to 135-fold based on the ivMN i to iv treatment schedule or 60-fold higher, respectively, when compared to combustible cigarettes. Discussion: Thus, the MO test products are likely to be less harmful than combustible cigarettes and are alternatives to cigarettes. However, understanding of long-term effects of ONPs in general requires additional research.
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.