SynthesisScientific reports2025
Tobacco smoking and the risk of aortic dissection in the UK Biobank and a meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Incidence and risk factors for aortic dissection in a community-based cohorts: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) and Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) studies.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- Association Between Diet Quality, Physical Activity, and the Risk of Aortic Dissection-A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Mortality trends and disparities associated with aortic aneurysm and aortic dissection in the United States from 1999 to 2023: a CDC WONDER database analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Impact of the society for vascular surgery/society of thoracic surgeons classification on prognosis and therapeutic strategies in acute Stanford type A aortic dissection.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tobacco smoking is thought to increase risk of aortic dissection, however, few prospective studies have been published on the association to date and little is known about the effect of smoking cessation on risk of aortic dissection. To clarify these associations we investigated the association between different aspects of tobacco smoking and aortic dissection in the UK Biobank Study and we summarized the available data in a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between smoking and risk of aortic dissection in the UK Biobank. PubMed and Embase were searched up to 19th of July 2024 to identify relevant cohort studies and random effects models were used to calculate summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs in the meta-analysis. During a mean follow-up of 12.3 years a total of 376 incident cases of aortic dissection were identified among 499,078 participants. The multivariable adjusted hazard ratio for current and former smokers versus never smokers were 2.48 (1.87-3.29) and 1.03 (0.81-1.29), respectively. There was a dose-response between increasing number of cigarettes smoked per day and aortic dissection risk with HRs (95% CIs) of 2.31 (1.13-4.71), 2.94 (1.88-4.58), and 2.63 (1.65-4.37) for 1-9, 10-19, and ≥ 20 cigarettes/day among current smokers. Greater number of pack-years was positively associated with aortic dissection (1.66, 1.21-2.28 for ≥ 30 pack-years vs. never smokers). Former smokers who had quit for varying durations had a 48-75% reduction in aortic dissection risk when compared to current smokers. In the meta-analysis, the summary RR was 2.44 (1.65-3.60, I
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.