Observational studyGlobal heart2025
Smoking as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Disease in Females and Males: Observational and Mendelian Randomisation Analyses in the UK Biobank.
Observational study in Global heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A narrative review of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related cardiotoxicity in lung cancer: mechanisms, risk stratification, and clinical management.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Ten-year trends in cardiovascular risk factors among patients hospitalised with acute myocardial infarction in Estonia: a retrospective nationwide observational study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Observational
- Article
- Burden of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis among asymptomatic adults: the REACH-Rural India Study.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular risk prediction in women: rethinking traditional approaches through precision medicine.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Observational studies have shown that smoking is more strongly associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) in females than in males. It remains unclear whether these observed sex differences reflect differences in the causal effects of smoking between the sexes. Methods: This study investigated sex-specific associations between ever smoking, smoking continuation, and the number of cigarettes smoked per day and CVD outcomes by conducting sex-stratified observational and Mendelian randomisation (MR) analyses in the UK Biobank. Results: In observational analyses, we found a greater excess risk of ever smoking, smoking continuation, and number of cigarettes smoked per day for CVD in females than in males with female-to-male ratios of hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04, 1.12), 1.15 (1.07, 1.22), 1.05 (1.02, 1.08), respectively. Results were similar for CHD, and we found no sex differences for stroke. Results from MR analyses were directionally similar; however, we were not able to detect statistically significant sex differences in the effect of smoking exposures on any CVD outcome. For subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH), we found indications for a stronger causal effect of ever smoking in females as compared to males (female-to-male ratio of ORs 2.61 [95%CI 1.06, 6.42]). Conclusion: This study shows that both smoking initiation and higher smoking intensity are observationally and causally related to a higher CVD risk in both females and males. Observed sex differences in the association between smoking and CVD were directionally similar to sex differences in the causal effects of smoking on CVD. In general, MR estimates were more uncertain, and the causal effects of smoking on CVD may be similar in females and males.
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.