Erratum to “A dynamic population model for estimating all-cause mortality due to lifetime exposure history” [Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 67 (2013) 246–251](S0273230013001207)(10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.08.003);A dynamic population model for estimating all-cause mortality due to lifetime exposure history

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 67, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 246-251

  Bachand, Annette M ^a,b   Sulsky, Sandra I ^a  

^a ENVIRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION   (United States)

^b Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

Harm reduction; Policy; Population simulation; Unintended consequences

Indexed keywords

AGE; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LIFE HISTORY; LIFE TABLE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MORTALITY; POPULATION MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SMOKING; SMOKING CESSATION; STATISTICAL MODEL; SURVIVOR; SWEDEN; UNITED STATES;

NICOTIANA TABACUM;

HARM REDUCTION; POLICY; POPULATION SIMULATION; UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES;

CAUSE OF DEATH; HUMANS; LIFE TABLES; MARKOV CHAINS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SMOKING; SWEDEN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84886595297     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: 10960295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.09.024     Document Type: Erratum

References (20)

1. Apelberg B.J., Onicescu G., vila-Tang E., Samet J.M. Estimating the risks and benefits of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation in the United States. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100:341-348.
2. CDC. 1994. Surveillance for selected tobacco-use behaviors-United States, 1900-1994. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ 43.
3. CDC. 2009. Deaths: final data for 2006. National vital statistics report 57.
4. Friedman G., Tekawa I.S., Sadler M., Sidney S. Smoking and mortality: the Kaiser Permanente experience. Changes in Cigarette-Related Disease Risks and Their Implication for Prevention and Control 1997, 477-499. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National, MD, Cancer Institute, Rockville. D.R. Shopland, D.M. Burns, L. Garfinkel, J. Samet (Eds.).
5. Garrison L.P. The ISPOR good practice modeling Principles-a sensible approach: be transparent, be reasonable. Value Health 2003, 6:6-8.
6. Hoogenveen R.T., van Baal P.H., Boshuizen H.C., Feenstra T.L. Dynamic effects of smoking cessation on disease incidence, mortality and quality of life: the role of time since cessation. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 2008, 6:1.
7. Kulik M.C., Nusselder W.J., Boshuizen H.C., Lhachimi S.K., Fernandez E., Baili P., Bennett K., Mackenbach J.P., Smit H.A. Comparison of tobacco control scenarios: quantifying estimates of long-term health impact using the DYNAMO-HIA modeling tool. PLoS One 2012, 7:e32363.
8. Levy D.T., Bauer J.E., Lee H.R. Simulation modeling and tobacco control: creating more robust public health policies. Am. J. Public Health 2006, 96:494-498.
9. Levy D.T., Friend K. Examining the effects of tobacco treatment policies on smoking rates and smoking related deaths using the SimSmoke computer simulation model. Tob. Control 2002, 11:47-54.
10. Levy D.T., Mumford E.A., Cummings K.M., Gilpin E.A., Giovino G., Hyland A., Sweanor D., Warner K.E. The relative risks of a low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco product compared with smoking cigarettes: estimates of a panel of experts. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2004, 13:2035-2042.
11. Lundqvist G., Sandstrom H., Ohman A., Weinehall L. Patterns of tobacco use: a 10-year follow-up study of smoking and snus habits in a middle-aged Swedish population. Scand. J. Public Health 2009, 37:161-167.
12. Lunn D.J., Thomas A., Best N., Spiegelhalter D. WinBUGS - a bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Sta. Comput. 2000, 10:325-337.
13. Mejia A.B., Ling P.M., Glantz S.A. Quantifying the effects of promoting smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction strategy in the USA. Tob. Control 2010, 19:297-305.
14. Messer K., Pierce J.P., Zhu S.H., Hartman A.M., Al-Delaimy W.K., Trinidad D.R., Gilpin E.A. The california tobacco control program's effect on adult smokers: (1) smoking cessation. Tob. Control 2007, 16:85-90.
15. SAMHSA., 1999. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Statistics. US Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Applied Studies. Washington, DC.
16. Sveriges officiella statistik. Statistics Sweden. Last update 2012. Accessed on 6-2-2011. http://www.scb.se/Grupp/Hitta_statistik/Historisk_statistik/_Dokument/SOS/Befolkningsstatistik/Befolkning%20Befolkningsforandringar%201981%20Del%203.pdf.
17. Tengs T.O., Ahmad S., Moore R., Gage E. Federal policy mandating safer cigarettes: a hypothetical simulation of the anticipated population health gains or losses. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 2004, 23:857-872.
18. Tengs T.O., Ahmad S., Savage J.M., Moore R., Gage E. The AMA proposal to mandate nicotine reduction in cigarettes: a simulation of the population health impacts. Prev. Med. 2005, 40:170-180.
19. Tengs T.O., Osgood N.D., Lin T.H. Public health impact of changes in smoking behavior: results from the tobacco policy model. Med. Care 2001, 39:1131-1141.
20. Weinstein M.C., O'Brien B., Hornberger J., Jackson J., Johannesson M., McCabe C., Luce B.R. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices-modeling studies. Value Health 2003, 6:9-17.