Financial conflicts of interest and stance on tobacco harm reduction: A systematic review

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 109, Issue 7, 2019, Pages E1-E8

  Hendlin, Yogi H ^a   Vora, Manali ^a   Elias, Jesse ^a   Ling, Pamela M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ECONOMICS; ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE; HARM REDUCTION; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; SMOKING CESSATION; SMOKING PREVENTION; TOBACCO; TOBACCO INDUSTRY;

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ELECTRONIC NICOTINE DELIVERY SYSTEMS; HARM REDUCTION; HUMANS; SMOKING CESSATION; SMOKING PREVENTION; TOBACCO INDUSTRY; TOBACCO PRODUCTS; TOBACCO USE CESSATION DEVICES;

EID: 85067265450     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: 15410048     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305106     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Committee to Assess the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction, Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine; Stratton K, Shetty P, Wallace R, Bondurant S, eds. Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
2. Terry M, Cummings KM, Erickson A, Shopland D. Ending cigarette use by adults in a generation is possible: the views of 120 leaders in tobacco control. Core Team on Tobacco Control. 2017. Available at: http://www.tobaccoreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Executive-Summary-Report-Ending-Cigarette-Use-by-Adults.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2017.
3. Meier BM, Shelley D. The fourth pillar of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: harm reduction and the international human right to health. Public Health Rep. 2006;121(5):494-500.
4. Patnode CD, Henderson JT, Thompson JH, Senger CA, Fortmann SP, Whitlock EP. Behavioral Counseling and Pharmacotherapy Interventions for Tobacco Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Women: A Review of Reviews for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2015. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK321744. Accessed November 18, 2018.
5. Stratton K, Kwan LY, Eaton DL, eds; Committee on the Review of the Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Health and Medicine Division, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2018.
6. Crowley RA. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: executive summary of a policy position paper from the American College of Physicians [erratum in Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(12):880]. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(8): 583-584.
7. Britton J, Arnott D, McNeill A, Hopkinson N; Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. Nicotine without smoke-putting electronic cigarettes in context. BMJ. 2016;353:i1745.
8. McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, et al.; Public Health England. E-Cigarettes: An Evidence Update. London, England: Public Health England; 2015.
9. Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Begh R, Stead LF, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;9: CD010216.
10. Kalkhoran S, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes and smoking cessation in real-world and clinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4(2): 116-128.
11. Berry KM, Reynolds LM, Collins JM, et al. E-cigarette initiation and associated changes in smoking cessation and reduction: the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, 2013-2015. Tob Control. 2019;28(1):42-49.
12. Yach D. Foundation for a smoke-free world. Lancet. 2017;390(10104):1807-1810.
13. Peeters S, Gilmore AB. Understanding the emergence of the tobacco industry's use of the term tobacco harm reduction in order to inform public health policy. Tob Control. 2015;24(2):182-189.
14. Tan CE, Kyriss T, Glantz SA. Tobacco company efforts to influence the Food and Drug Administration-commissioned Institute of Medicine report Clearing the Smoke: an analysis of documents released through litigation. PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001450.
15. British American Tobacco. Sustainability Report 2016. 2017. Available at: https://www.bat.com/sustainability. Accessed March 21, 2017.
16. Wang AT, McCoy CP, Murad MH, Montori VM. Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review. BMJ. 2010;340:c1344.
17. Pisinger C, Døssing M. A systematic review of health effects of electronic cigarettes. Prev Med. 2014;69: 248-260.
18. Critchley JA, Unal B. Is smokeless tobacco a risk factor for coronary heart disease? A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2004; 11(2):101-112.
19. Tam J, Day HR, Rostron BL, Apelberg BJ. A systematic review of transitions between cigarette and smokeless tobacco product use in the United States. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):258.
20. Evans WD, Horn KA, Gray T. Systematic review to inform dual tobacco use prevention. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2015;62(5):1159-1172.
21. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed May 6, 2019.
22. Deyner D, Tranfield D. Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan D, Bryman A, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2009: 671-689.
23. Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software. 2018. Available at https://www.covidence.org. Accessed July 29, 2016.
24. Gupta PC, Ray CS. Epidemiology of betel quid usage. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2004;33(4 suppl):31-36.
25. Rees VW, Wayne GF, Connolly GN. Puffing style and human exposure minimally altered by switching to a carbon-filtered cigarette. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(11):2995-3003.
26. Maziak W. The global epidemic of waterpipe smoking. Addict Behav. 2011;36(1-2):1-5.
27. Wickström R. Effects of nicotine during pregnancy: human and experimental evidence. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2007;5(3):213-222.
28. Landman A, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry efforts to undermine policy-relevant research. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(1):45-58.
29. Smith EA, Malone RE. Philip Morris's health information web site appears responsible but undermines public health. Public Health Nurs. 2008;25(6):554-564.
30. McDaniel PA, Malone RE. British American Tobacco's partnership with Earthwatch Europe and its implications for public health. Glob Public Health. 2012; 7(1):14-28.
31. Smith J, Thompson S, Lee K. The Atlas Network: a “strategic ally” of the tobacco industry. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2017;32(4):433-448.
32. Martínez C, Fu M, Galán I, et al. Conflicts of interest in research on electronic cigarettes. Tob Induc Dis. 2018; 16:28.
33. Cataldo JK, Prochaska JJ, Glantz SA. Cigarette smoking is a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease: an analysis controlling for tobacco industry affiliation. J Alzheimers Dis. 2010;19(2):465-480.
34. Turner C, Spilich GJ. Research into smoking or nicotine and human cognitive performance: does the source of funding make a difference? Addiction. 1997; 92(11):1423-1426.
35. Targacept: key messages. RJ Reynolds. March 18, 1999. Available at: https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/szbm0008. Accessed April 13, 2018.
36. Sismondo S. How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: causal structures and responses. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(9):1909-1914.
37. Hirshbein L. Scientific research and corporate influence: smoking, mental illness, and the tobacco industry. J Hist Med Allied Sci. 2012;67(3):374-397.
38. Muggli ME, Hurt RD, Blanke DD. Science for hire: a tobacco industry strategy to influence public opinion on secondhand smoke. Nicotine Tob Res. 2003;5(3):303-314.
39. Barnes DE, Bero LA. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA. 1998;279(19):1566-1570.
40. Mandrioli D, Kearns CE, Bero LA. Relationship between research outcomes and risk of bias, study sponsorship, and author financial conflicts of interest in reviewsoftheeffectsofartificiallysweetenedbeverageson weight outcomes: a systematic review of reviews. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162198.
41. Glantz SA, Slade J, Bero LA, Hanauer P, Barnes DE, eds. The Cigarette Papers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1998.
42. Bero L. Implications of the tobacco industry documents for public health and policy. Annu Rev Public Health. 2003;24(1):267-288.
43. Bero LA, Glantz S, Hong M-K. The limits of competing interest disclosures. Tob Control. 2005;14(2): 118-126.
44. Grundy Q, Dunn AG, Bourgeois FT, Coiera E, Bero L. Prevalence of disclosed conflicts of interest in biomedical research and associations with journal impact factors and altmetric scores. JAMA. 2018;319(4): 408-409.
45. Nutt DJ, Phillips LD, Balfour D, et al. Estimating the harms of nicotine-containing products using the MCDA approach. Eur Addict Res. 2014;20(5):218-225.
46. Tobacco Advisory Group. Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction: a report. London, England: Royal College of Physicians; 2016.
47. Gornall J. Public Health England's troubled trail. BMJ. 2015;351:h5826.
48. E-cigarettes: Public Health England's evidence-based confusion. Lancet. 2015;386(9996):829.
49. Godlee F, Malone R, Timmis A, et al. Journal policy on research funded by the tobacco industry. Thorax. 2013; 68(12):1090-1091.
50. PLoS Medicine Editors. A new policy on tobacco papers. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000237.