Literature DB >> 3692498

Passive smoking and lung cancer association: a result of bias?

P N Lee1.   

Abstract

1 Epidemiological studies have reported that non-smokers married to smokers have a lung cancer risk 20-50% higher than that of non-smokers married to non-smokers. 2 In contrast, extrapolation based on relative smoke exposure of passive and active smokers would predict a much smaller effect. 3 This paper examines the possibility that bias due to misclassification of smoking habits, coupled with between spouse smoking habit concordance, could account for this discrepancy. 4 One thousand seven hundred and seventy-five subjects were asked about their smoking habits and use of other nicotine products in a non-health context likely to minimize underreporting of smoking. One thousand five hundred and thirty-seven provided saliva for cotinine analysis. Of 808 who claimed not to be users of such products, 2.5% had cotinine values above 30 ng/ml, suggesting their self reports were false. In another study 540 subjects were interviewed in 1980 and in 1985. Ten per cent claiming on one occasion never to have smoked, made inconsistent statements on the other occasion. A third study showed a strong tendency for smokers to marry smokers. 5 Estimates of bias based on these data indicate that misclassification can explain the unexpectedly high lung cancer risk associated with spouse smoking in epidemiological studies of self-reported never smokers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3692498     DOI: 10.1177/096032718700600612

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Toxicol        ISSN: 0144-5952


  9 in total

1.  Characteristics of women exposed and unexposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in a general population sample of North Italy (Po River Delta epidemiological study).

Authors:  M Simoni; L Carrozzi; S Baldacci; M Pedreschi; F Di Pede; A Angino; F Pistelli; G Viegi
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 8.082

Review 2.  Misclassification rates for current smokers misclassified as nonsmokers.

Authors:  A J Wells; P B English; S F Posner; L E Wagenknecht; E J Perez-Stable
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Passive smoking and health: should we believe Philip Morris's "experts"?

Authors:  G D Smith; A N Phillips
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-10-12

4.  Smoking and ulcer perforation.

Authors:  C Svanes; J A Søreide; A Skarstein; B T Fevang; P Bakke; S E Vollset; K Svanes; O Søoreide
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 5.  Saliva as a matrix for human biomonitoring in occupational and environmental medicine.

Authors:  Bernhard Michalke; Bernd Rossbach; Thomas Göen; Anja Schäferhenrich; Gerhard Scherer
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 3.015

Review 6.  Challenging the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking: tactics of tobacco industry expert witnesses.

Authors:  John A Francis; Amy K Shea; Jonathan M Samet
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 7.552

7.  Determinants of passive smoking in children in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Authors:  M J Jarvis; D P Strachan; C Feyerabend
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Exposure misclassification bias in studies of environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer.

Authors:  A H Wu
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  New Policy of the Journal of Epidemiology Regarding the Relationship With the Tobacco Industry.

Authors:  Hiroyasu Iso; Keitaro Matsuo; Kota Katanoda; Takeo Fujiwara
Journal:  J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 3.211

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.