| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
**Citation: M. Jackson, J., Weke, A. & Holliday, R. Nicotine pouches: a review for the dental team. Br Dent J 235, 643–646 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-023-6383-7 | **Citation: M. Jackson, J., Weke, A. & Holliday, R. Nicotine pouches: a review for the dental team. Br Dent J 235, 643–646 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-023-6383-7 | ||
***Acknowledgment: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. (Source of funding?) | ***Acknowledgment: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. (Source of funding?) | ||
===2022: [https://f1000research.com/articles/9-1225#f1 Nicotine products relative risk assessment: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations<nowiki>]</nowiki> Previously titled: Nicotine products relative risk assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis]=== | |||
*In this update, 70 new studies were added to the synthesis, making a total of 123 studies included. All combustible tobacco products score between 40 and 100, with bidis and smokeless (rest of world) also in this range. All other products have a combined risk score of 10 or less, including U.S. chewing tobacco, U.S. dipping tobacco, snus, heat-not-burn tobacco, electronic cigarettes, non-tobacco pouches and nicotine replacement therapy. | |||
**Citation: Murkett R, Rugh M and Ding B. Nicotine products relative risk assessment: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 9:1225 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.26762.2) | |||
***Acknowledgement: The research presented was produced with the help of a grant from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, Inc. (FSFW), an independent, US non-profit 501(c)(3) grantmaking organization with the purpose of improving global health by ending smoking in this generation. The contents, selection, and presentation of facts, as well as any opinions expressed herein, are the sole responsibility of the authors and under no circumstances should they be regarded as reflecting the positions of FSFW. FSFW accepts charitable gifts from PMI Global Services Inc. (PMI); under FSFW’s Bylaws and Pledge Agreement with PMI, FSFW is independent from PMI and the tobacco industry. | |||
===2021: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13318-021-00742-9 A Randomised Study to Investigate the Nicotine Pharmacokinetics of Oral Nicotine Pouches and a Combustible Cigarette]=== | ===2021: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13318-021-00742-9 A Randomised Study to Investigate the Nicotine Pharmacokinetics of Oral Nicotine Pouches and a Combustible Cigarette]=== | ||
| Line 73: | Line 78: | ||
*Please see [[SLT]] (Smokeless Tobacco) page for more details | *Please see [[SLT]] (Smokeless Tobacco) page for more details | ||
=Suggested studies to add to this page= | =Suggested studies/articles to add to this page= | ||
===[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eos.12885 The effect of a non-tobacco-based nicotine pouch on mucosal lesions caused by Swedish smokeless tobacco (snus)]=== | |||
===[https://theconversation.com/oral-nicotine-pouches-deliver-lower-levels-of-toxic-substances-than-smoking-but-that-doesnt-mean-theyre-safe-232456 Oral nicotine pouches and related ‘snus’ tobacco pouches are marketed as cigarette alternatives. Andrii Atanov/iStock via Getty Images Oral nicotine pouches deliver lower levels of toxic substances than smoking – but that doesn’t mean they’re safe]=== | |||
[[Category:Studies, Surveys, and Papers]] | [[Category:Studies, Surveys, and Papers]] | ||
edits