ArticleTobacco control2026
Examining the implementation of court-ordered cigarette 'corrective statements' displayed in a regional sample of US tobacco retailers.
Article in Tobacco control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Inequities in the compliance of court-ordered point-of-sale tobacco industry corrective statements, USA.Tobacco control · 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
introductionIn 2022, a US Federal District Court ordered cigarette companies to display 'corrective statements' in over 200 000 tobacco retailers to remediate years of consumer fraud. This study conducted store assessments in a sample of affected retailers in New York City and New Jersey to document implementation features and differences by store type and community characteristics.
methodsAddresses of retailers required to display statements were geocoded and spatially joined with US Census Zip Code Tabulation Areas. Within nine counties, 627 retailers were randomly sampled and visited for inperson assessments between October 2024 and May 2025 to document sign presence, number and characteristics (eg, size, location, obstruction). Multilevel logistic regressions measured differences by store type and zip code demographics (in quartiles).
resultsSignage display was generally high (92.2%), but lower in non-chain convenience stores (91.4%; OR: 0.33 (0.13, 0.84)) and smoke/vape shops (84%; OR: 0.14 (0.05, 0.43)) versus chain convenience stores (97.2%), which also displayed a higher volume of signs. Stores in zip codes with the highest percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (Q4) had significantly lower display rates (88.6%; OR: 0.22 (0.06, 0.77)) versus Q1 (96.4%). Among 906 coded signs, 63.5% were the larger format, 40.3% were located above the tobacco display, 36.6% were near the exterior entrance and 6.1% were obstructed, indicating high visibility.
conclusionsDifferences in corrective statement display and volume may shape exposure opportunities, influencing population impacts. Future research should examine whether consumers notice and process these messages in real-world conditions, critical precursors to knowledge or behavioural change.
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.