ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2026
COTPA Section 4 Compliance in Udupi City Municipal Corporation: An Exploratory Survey From Coastal Karnataka.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 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.
- COTPA Section 4 Compliance in Udupi City Municipal Corporation: An Exploratory Survey From Coastal Karnataka.International journal of dentistry · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003, prohibits smoking in public places under Section 4 to protect individuals from second-hand smoke (SHS). However, compliance with this provision remains inconsistent across India. Aim: To assess compliance with Section 4 of COTPA in public places in the Udupi City Municipal Corporation (UCMC) of Karnataka. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study assessed compliance with smoke-free regulations in 189 public places selected by convenience sampling using a structured observational checklist. Compliance was categorised as full, partial, or non-compliant. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests with Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc analyses and binary logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Of 189 sites, 38% were compliant (17.5% fully and 20.5% partially), while 62% were non-compliant, primarily due to absent signage (48%); active smoking was observed at 14%. Place category significantly predicted compliance ( Conclusion: The findings highlight the need for stronger enforcement, routine monitoring and targeted awareness initiatives to improve compliance with smoke-free legislation and protect public health.
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.