ArticlePreventive medicine2026
Comparing tobacco use estimates in the U.S. from two large national surveys: the Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey and the National Health Interview Survey.
Article in Preventive medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare tobacco use estimates in the U.S. from the Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (TUS-CPS) and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).
methodsWe analyzed TUS-CPS cycles 2018/2019 and 2022/2023 and corresponding NHIS years. We compared current cigarette, e-cigarette, and cigar use using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analyses and examined potential explanations for differences, including interview mode.
resultsCurrent cigarette smoking declined from 13.7% to 10.8% in NHIS and from 12.0% to 8.7% in TUS-CPS. Adjusted odds of cigarette smoking in 2023 versus 2018 declined similarly (NHIS OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.71,0.82; TUS-CPS OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.65,0.72). Restricting TUS-CPS to in-person respondents yielded prevalence similar to NHIS. Larger discrepancies were observed for e-cigarette use (NHIS: 3.2% to 6.5%; TUS-CPS in-person: 2.2% to 3.4%), with adjusted odds increasing more in NHIS (OR = 2.25, 95% CI: 2.01,2.52) than TUS-CPS (OR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.31,1.63). Differences also remained for cigar use (NHIS average: 3.8%; TUS-CPS in-person average: 2.5%).
conclusionsThe surveys yielded differing prevalence estimates but largely comparable sociodemographic associations. Interview mode may partially explain differences, particularly for cigarette smoking. Understanding methodological differences is important when comparing and selecting data sources.
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.