ArticlePloS one2025
Development and Validation of a Tobacco Testing Laboratories Assessment Tool.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundEffective regulation and control of tobacco products require robust laboratory testing capabilities to ensure quality, safety and compliance with relevant standards. Currently, no standardized assessment tool exists globally to evaluate the tobacco testing laboratories. This study aims to address this gap by developing the Tobacco Testing Laboratory Assessment Tool (TTLAT). This tool aligns with the WHO-FCTC on Tobacco Control's Article 9, which calls for the adoption and implementation of effective testing, measuring, and regulation measures. METHODOLOGY: The TTLAT was developed through a systematic literature review and a two-round Delphi technique involving 24 experts. The tool was then validated in four National Tobacco Testing Laboratories in India. Content validity was assessed using the Item-Content Validity Index (I-CVI) and Scale-Content Validity Index (S-CVI). Construct validity was evaluated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Internal consistency reliability was measured using Cronbach's alpha.
resultsThe final TTLAT comprises 213 items across 11 critical domains including General Information (17), Documents (37), Organization and Management (10), Human Resources (28), Infrastructure (7), Equipment (23), Consumables and Reagents (10), Sample Handling (17), Tobacco Product Analytes (8), Data Management (36), and Biosafety and Biosecurity (20). Content validity analysis showed excellent results. Exploratory factor analysis identified six factors accounting for 52.5% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated good model fit (CFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.06). The tool showed high internal consistency reliability across factors (Cronbach's alpha 0.72-0.92).
conclusionThe TTLAT demonstrates strong psychometric properties and provides a comprehensive, standardised approach for assessing tobacco testing laboratory capacity.
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.