ReviewiScience2025
Observational studies of exposure to tobacco and nicotine products: Best practices for maximizing statistical precision and accuracy.
Review in iScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- E-cigarette Duration and Incident COPD Among Adults Aged 40 Years and Older with a Smoking History.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Patterns and characteristics of nicotine pouch use among adults with a history of cigarette smoking.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- When meta-analysis misleads: the need for methodological integrity in e-cigarette research.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Observational studies of exposure to tobacco and nicotine products: Best practices for maximizing statistical precision and accuracy.iScience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Non-randomized observational studies can track risk-induction and -reduction associated with real-world use of non-combusted nicotine and tobacco products. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the precision and accuracy of recent studies and to identify opportunities for further optimizing future study designs. The ROBINS framework for minimizing statistical bias was translated to specific considerations that spanned the selection and quantification of cohorts, exposure, and outcomes. These principles were then considered within the context of a recent comprehensive meta-analysis, representing 107 observational studies, which evaluated the effects of using electronic cigarettes (ECs), combusted cigarettes (CCs) and dual use of both. The meta-analysis had previously reported the relative risk from all-sources, including tobacco use and non-tobacco use. We now report the product use-specific risk associated with displacing CCs with ECs indicated from the primary references, along with observations regarding the precision of characterization of CC and EC exposure in the cited studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.