Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41738305›Full record

SynthesisNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2026

Assessing the causal effects of environmental tobacco smoke exposure: a meta-analytic Mendelian randomization study.

Benjamin Woolf, Skanda Rajasundaram, Janne Pott, Dipender Gill, Hannah M Sallis, Stephen Burgess, Marcus R Munafò

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Benjamin WoolfSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TU, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1505-2570
Skanda RajasundaramMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, EC1V 2PD, United Kingdom.
Janne PottMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, United Kingdom.
Dipender GillDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, W12 0BZ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7312-7078
Hannah M SallisMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS1 5DS, United Kingdom.
Stephen BurgessMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5365-8760
Marcus R MunafòSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TU, United Kingdom.

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council ES/P000630/1United Kingdom Research and Innovation Medical Research Council MC_UU_00032/07United Kingdom Research and Innovation Medical Research Council MC_UU_00040/01Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 225790/Z/22/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFirst-hand smoking is a major cause of global morbidity and mortality. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS; "second-hand" or "passive smoking") may also cause ill health, but establishing ETS as the cause is challenging, in part due to confounding and reverse causation.

methodsWe applied Mendelian randomization (MR) to investigate the causal effects of ETS. We use four approaches to instrument ETS exposure: The first and second used an index individual's parent's genetically predicted smoking, independent of the index individual's genetically predicted smoking to assess the effects of that parent's smoking on the index individual. The third and fourth used one index individual's parent's genetically predicted smoking, independent of the other parent's genetically predicted smoking to assess the effects of the first parent's smoking on the second parent. We then meta-analyze the four MR approaches.

resultsOur findings suggest a causal effect of genetically predicted ETS exposure on lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (PFDR < .001 for both). We did not find evidence supporting an effect on hypertension, depression, coronary heart disease, or stroke (PFDR = 1.000 for all four non-respiratory outcomes).

conclusionThese results support existing public health measures to limit exposure to ETS. IMPLICATIONS: We assess the causal effects of environmental tobacco smoking (ETS; "second-hand smoking" or "passive smoking") using a quasi-experimental method, Mendelian randomization, which is more robust to confounding than conventional epidemiological methods.To study the effects of ETS exposure, we used an index individual's parent's or spouses' genetically predicted smoking, independent of either the index's or the other parent's genetically predicted smoking when assessing the effect of that parent's smoking on the index individual or other parent, respectively. We then meta-analyze the effects of different relatives.This study extends the Mendelian randomization paradigm to assess ETS by examining the effect that one relative has on the other relative, independent of the other relative's smoking. In doing so, it adds a unique source of evidence that triangulates with prior research to indicate an effect of ETS exposure on lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Indexed as

Environmental ExposureMendelian Randomization AnalysisTobacco Smoke PollutionCausalityHumansSmokingTobacco Smoke PollutionALSPACenvironmental tobacco smokelung cancerMendelian randomizationpassive smokingsecond-hand smoking

Identifiers

PMID41738305
PMCPMC13389530

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.