Dataset Information

Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part B: Methodological limitations.

ABSTRACT: The Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) defines enhanced reporting obligations applying to 15 priority additives added to cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. A consortium of 12 international tobacco companies submitted 14 reports that were reviewed by an independent scientific body within the Joint Action on Tobacco Control (JATC). The reports were evaluated in accordance with the TPD with regard to their comprehensiveness, methodology and conclusions. Here we present their significant identified methodological limitations. The toxicological and chemical evaluation in the industry reports was mainly based on comparative testing, which lacks discriminative power for products with high toxicity and variability, like cigarettes. The literature reviews were biased, the comparative chemical studies did not assess previously identified pyrolysis products, the toxicological evaluation did not include the assessment of inhalation toxicity, and pyrolysis products were not assessed in terms of toxicity, including their genotoxic and carcinogenic potential. For both chemistry and toxicity testing, the statistical approach applied to test the difference between test and additive-free control cigarettes resulted in a high chance of false negatives. The clinical study for inhalation facilitation and nicotine uptake had limitations concerning study design and statistical analysis, while addictiveness was not assessed. Finally, the methodology used to assess characterizing flavors was flawed. In conclusion, there are significant limitations in the methodology applied by the industry. Therefore, the provided reports are of insufficient quality and are clearly not suitable to decide whether a priority additive should be banned in tobacco products according to the TPD.

SUBMITTER: Bolling AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9255286 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part B: Methodological limitations.

Bolling Anette K AK Mallock Nadja N Zervas Efthimios E Caillé-Garnier Stéphanie S Mansuy Thibault T Michel Cécile C Pennings Jeroen L A JLA Schulz Thomas T Schwarze Per E PE Solimini Renata R Tassin Jean-Pol JP Vardavas Constantine C Merino Miguel M Pauwels Charlotte G G M CGGM van Nierop Lotte E LE Lambré Claude C Havermans Anne A

Tobacco prevention & cessation 20220705

The Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) defines enhanced reporting obligations applying to 15 priority additives added to cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. A consortium of 12 international tobacco companies submitted 14 reports that were reviewed by an independent scientific body within the Joint Action on Tobacco Control (JATC). The reports were evaluated in accordance with the TPD with regard to their comprehensiveness, methodology and conclusions. Here we present their significant identified ...[more]

PMID: 35860505

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:A strong need exists for a validated tool that clearly defines peer review report quality in biomedical research, as it will allow evaluating interventions aimed at improving the peer review process in well-performed trials. We aim to identify and describe existing tools for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research. METHODS:We conducted a methodological systematic review by searching PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (via The Cochrane Library) as well as Google® for all reports in English describing a tool for assessing the quality of a peer review report in biomedical research. Data extraction was performed in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form. We extracted information on the structure, development and validation of each tool. We also identified quality components across tools using a systematic multi-step approach and we investigated quality domain similarities among tools by performing hierarchical, complete-linkage clustering analysis. RESULTS:We identified a total number of 24 tools: 23 scales and 1 checklist. Six tools consisted of a single item and 18 had several items ranging from 4 to 26. None of the tools reported a definition of 'quality'. Only 1 tool described the scale development and 10 provided measures of validity and reliability. Five tools were used as an outcome in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Moreover, we classified the quality components of the 18 tools with more than one item into 9 main quality domains and 11 subdomains. The tools contained from two to seven quality domains. Some domains and subdomains were considered in most tools such as the detailed/thorough (11/18) nature of reviewer's comments. Others were rarely considered, such as whether or not the reviewer made comments on the statistical methods (1/18). CONCLUSION:Several tools are available to assess the quality of peer review reports; however, the development and validation process is questionable and the concepts evaluated by these tools vary widely. The results from this study and from further investigations will inform the development of a new tool for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research.

Project description:BackgroundTobacco control models are mathematical models predicting tobacco-related outcomes in defined populations. The policy simulation model is considered as a subcategory of tobacco control models simulating the potential outcomes of tobacco control policy options. However, we could not identify any existing tool specifically designed to assess the quality of tobacco control models.ObjectiveThe aims of this systematic methodology review are to: (1) identify best modeling practices, (2) highlight common pitfalls, and (3) develop recommendations to assess the quality of tobacco control policy simulation models. Crucially, these recommendations can empower model users to assess the quality of current and future modeling studies, potentially leading to better tobacco policy decision-making for the public. This protocol describes the planned systematic review stages, paper inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction, and analysis.MethodsTwo reviewers searched five databases (Embase, EconLit, PsycINFO, PubMed, and CINAHL Plus) to identify eligible studies published between July 2013 and August 2019. We included papers projecting tobacco-related outcomes with a focus on tobacco control policies in any population and setting. Eligible papers were independently screened by two reviewers. The data extraction form was designed and piloted to extract model structure, data sources, transparency, validation, and other qualities. We will use a narrative synthesis to present the results by summarizing model trends, analyzing model approaches, and reporting data input and result quality. We will propose recommendations to assess the quality of tobacco control policy simulation models using the findings from this review and related literature.ResultsData collection is in progress. Results are expected to be completed and submitted for publication by April 2021.ConclusionsThis systematic methodological review will summarize the best practices and pitfalls existing among tobacco control policy simulation models and present a recommendation list of a high-quality tobacco control simulation model. A more standardized and quality-assured tobacco control policy simulation model will benefit modelers, policymakers, and the public on both model building and decision making.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020178146; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020178146.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/26854.

Project description:BackgroundThe Czech Republic has one of the poorest tobacco control records in Europe. This paper examines transnational tobacco companies' (TTCs') efforts to influence policy there, paying particular attention to excise policies, as high taxes are one of the most effective means of reducing tobacco consumption, and tax structures are an important aspect of TTC competitiveness.Methods and findingsTTC documents dating from 1989 to 2004/5 were retrieved from the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library website, analysed using a socio-historical approach, and triangulated with key informant interviews and secondary data. The documents demonstrate significant industry influence over tobacco control policy. Philip Morris (PM) ignored, overturned, and weakened various attempts to restrict tobacco advertising, promoting voluntary approaches as an alternative to binding legislation. PM and British American Tobacco (BAT) lobbied separately on tobacco tax structures, each seeking to implement the structure that benefitted its own brand portfolio over that of its competitors, and enjoying success in turn. On excise levels, the different companies took a far more collaborative approach, seeking to keep tobacco taxes low and specifically to prevent any large tax increases. Collective lobbying, using a variety of arguments, was successful in delaying the tax increases required via European Union accession. Contrary to industry arguments, data show that cigarettes became more affordable post-accession and that TTCs have taken advantage of low excise duties by raising prices. Interview data suggest that TTCs enjoy high-level political support and continue to actively attempt to influence policy.ConclusionThere is clear evidence of past and ongoing TTC influence over tobacco advertising and excise policy. We conclude that this helps explain the country's weak tobacco control record. The findings suggest there is significant scope for tobacco tax increases in the Czech Republic and that large (rather than small, incremental) increases are most effective in reducing smoking.

Project description:Influencing public perception is a key way in which all transnational corporations (TNCs) maintain market dominance and political power. Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) have a long history of leveraging narratives to serve commercial ambitions. The global reach of these companies' narratives has been highlighted as a challenge in combatting public health problems caused by tobacco. The corporate power of TTCs is carefully curated, and their narratives play an important role in the setting of governance dynamics at local, national and transnational levels. This qualitative work explores and compares the language used by British American Tobacco (BAT) and Philip Morris International (PMI) around harm, harm reduction and terms used to refer to newer nicotine and tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products. We systematically examine framings used by these two TTCs through company reports published between 2011 and 2021. Qualitative coding was carried out by four coders, according to a protocol developed specifically for this work. We firstly identified the presence of pre-selected keywords and then assigned chunks of text containing those key words to one or more associated frames drawn from Boydstun's policy frames codebook (2013). Qualitative coding identified the most common frames from Boydstun's codebook and thematic analysis highlighted three overarching themes. The most common frames assigned were "capacity and resources", "health and safety" and "economic" frames. The overarching themes were individualization, normalization, and regulation. These themes capture how both BAT and PMI use particular framings to downplay the role of TTCs in the perpetuation of population- and individual-level harms related to tobacco use. They seek to normalize their role in public discussions of health policy, to cast themselves as instrumental in the redress of tobacco-related inequalities and shift responsibility for the continuation of tobacco-product use onto individual consumers. These tactics are problematic for the effective and impartial development and implementation of local, national and international tobacco control agendas.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Measurement of self-efficacy requires carefully developed and validated instruments. It is currently unclear whether available self-efficacy instruments for chronic diseases fulfill these requirements. Our aim was to systematically identify all existing self-efficacy scales for five major chronic diseases and to assess their development and validation process. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in electronic databases (MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, and EMBASE) to identify studies describing the development and/or validation process of self-efficacy instruments for the five chronic diseases diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, arthritis, and heart failure. Two members of the review team independently selected articles meeting inclusion criteria. The self-efficacy instruments were evaluated in terms of their development (aim of instrument, a priori considerations, identification of items, selection of items, development of domains, answer options) and validation (test-retest reliability, internal consistency reliability, validity, responsiveness) process. RESULTS: Of 584 potentially eligible papers we included 25 (13 for diabetes, 5 for asthma, 4 for arthritis, 3 for COPD, 0 for heart failure) which covered 26 different self-efficacy instrument versions. For 8 instruments (30.8%), the authors described the aim before the scales were developed whereas for the other instruments the aim was unclear. In one study (3.8%) a priori considerations were specified. In none of the studies a systematic literature search was carried out to identify items. The item selection process was often not clearly described (38.5%). Test-retest reliability was assessed for 9 instruments (34.6%), validity using a correlational approach for 18 (69.2%), and responsiveness to change for 3 (11.5%) instruments. CONCLUSION: The development and validation process of the majority of the self-efficacy instruments had major limitations. The aim of the instruments was often not specified and for most instruments, not all measurement properties that are important to support the specific aim of the instrument (for example responsiveness for evaluative instruments) were assessed. Researchers who develop and validate self-efficacy instruments should adhere more closely to important methodological concepts for development and validation of patient-reported outcomes and report their methods more transparently. We propose a systematic five step approach for the development and validation of self-efficacy instruments.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether network meta-analyses, increasingly used to assess comparative effectiveness of healthcare interventions, follow the key methodological recommendations for reporting and conduct of systematic reviews.DesignMethodological systematic review of reports of network meta-analyses.Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Medline, and Embase, searched from inception to 12 July 2012.Review methodsAll network meta-analyses comparing clinical efficacy of three or more interventions based on randomised controlled trials, excluding meta-analyses with an open loop network of three interventions. We assessed the reporting of general characteristics and key methodological components of the systematic review process using two composite outcomes. For some components, if reporting was adequate, we assessed their conduct quality.ResultsOf 121 network meta-analyses covering a wide range of medical areas, 100 (83%) assessed pharmacological interventions and 11 (9%) non-pharmacological interventions; 56 (46%) were published in journals with a high impact factor. The electronic search strategy for each database was not reported in 88 (73%) network meta-analyses; for 36 (30%), the primary outcome was not clearly identified. Overall, 61 (50%) network meta-analyses did not report any information regarding the assessment of risk of bias of individual studies, and 103 (85%) did not report any methods to assess the likelihood of publication bias. Overall, 87 (72%) network meta-analyses did not report the literature search, searched only one database, did not search other sources, or did not report an assessment of risk of bias of individual studies. These methodological components did not differ by publication in a general or specialty journal or by public or private funding.ConclusionsEssential methodological components of the systematic review process-conducting a literature search and assessing risk of bias of individual studies-are frequently lacking in reports of network meta-analyses, even when published in journals with high impact factors.

Dataset Information

Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part B: Methodological limitations.

Publications

Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part B: Methodological limitations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets