ReviewTobacco use insights2026
A Meta-Analysis of Urinary Cotinine Cut-Off Concentrations in Children Under Five Years for Assessing Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure.
Review in Tobacco use insights, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure is a preventable risk factor for adverse health outcomes in early childhood. Urinary cotinine is widely used as a non-invasive biomarker of ETS exposure; however, variation in reported cut-off concentrations limits comparability across studies. No prior systematic review has quantitatively synthesised urinary cotinine cut-off values for children under five years. This review aimed to systematically summarise and evaluate these cut-off concentrations in early childhood. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines and a prospectively published protocol (PROSPERO CRD42024556969). PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2025. Observational and experimental studies reporting urinary cotinine cut-off concentrations to classify ETS exposure among children under five years were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate pooled urinary cotinine cut-off concentrations for ETS exposure classification, stratified by unit of measurement (ng/mL vs ng/mg creatinine). Results: Twelve studies were included. Reported urinary cotinine cut-off concentrations ranged from 0.05 to 30 ng/mL for unadjusted values and from 2.47 to 120 ng/mg creatinine for creatinine-adjusted values. Meta-analysis yielded pooled reference values of 5.90 ng/mL (95% CI: 5.53-6.27) and 50.36 ng/mg creatinine (95% CI: 47.53-53.20), respectively. Conclusion: Urinary cotinine is a valid biomarker for assessing ETS in young children, but inconsistent cut-off values limit comparability. The pooled estimates may aid interpretation in surveillance and research but should not be used as universal thresholds. Standardized, age-appropriate cut-offs are needed to strengthen exposure assessment and inform child-focused tobacco control policies.
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.