SynthesisJAMA network open2026
Compensatory Smoking With Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in JAMA network open, 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is pursuing a low-nicotine product standard for cigarettes and other combusted tobacco. Very low nicotine content cigarettes (VLNCs) contain approximately 95% less nicotine than standard cigarettes. A key concern is that people who smoke may increase their smoking to compensate for the reduced nicotine levels, which would be a major unintended consequence of the regulation. Objective: To examine whether people who smoke increase their smoking behavior and/or smoke exposure when smoking VLNCs for extended periods. Data Sources: A comprehensive search was performed across multiple databases (eg, PubMed Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) on July 5, 2024, to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating VLNCs. Study Selection: Eligible RCTs reported treatment conditions comprising smoking VLNCs for 3- to 20-week periods. Control conditions varied but typically included smoking normal nicotine content cigarettes (NNCs). Data Extraction and Synthesis: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Two investigators performed the data extraction. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included the total number of cigarettes smoked per day and exhaled breath carbon monoxide (CO) exposure at the end of the intervention. Results: Seventeen RCTs (16 from the US and 1 from New Zealand) published between 2010 and 2024 met inclusion criteria, representing 5500 adolescents and adults who smoked cigarettes daily or nondaily, with or without quit interest. The pooled meta-analysis included a subset of 2454 participants from 7 US trials. No trials reported increases in the mean number of cigarettes smoked per day or CO exposure at the end of the intervention among participants assigned to VLNCs vs NNCs. It was estimated that 0.8% of participants could expect an increase in smoking, with a maximum expected increase of 3.3 cigarettes smoked per day, and 8.1% could expect an increase in CO exposure, with a maximum expected increase of 4.2 parts per million 6 weeks after randomization if assigned VLNCs vs NNCs. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis of VLNC RCTs found minimal evidence of compensation among people assigned to smoke VLNCs. The findings suggest that widespread compensatory smoking is unlikely to occur if the FDA implements a low-nicotine product standard for cigarettes and other combusted tobacco.
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.