Nicotine - Retracted Studies, Papers, and Articles: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
**"Alzahrani and colleagues rightly point out that their models test for and thus demonstrate statistically independent effects of smoking and vaping, but if vaping and smoking are not actually independent contributors to identifying MI occurrence—that is, if the association between e-cigarette use and MI occurrence varies as a function of combustible cigarette use—then the main-effects model cannot be used to draw conclusions about the association between e-cigarette use and MI, independent of (or regardless of) one's history of combustible cigarette use." (Critcher, Siegel) | **"Alzahrani and colleagues rightly point out that their models test for and thus demonstrate statistically independent effects of smoking and vaping, but if vaping and smoking are not actually independent contributors to identifying MI occurrence—that is, if the association between e-cigarette use and MI occurrence varies as a function of combustible cigarette use—then the main-effects model cannot be used to draw conclusions about the association between e-cigarette use and MI, independent of (or regardless of) one's history of combustible cigarette use." (Critcher, Siegel) | ||
*See also: [https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.012 2019] | *See also: [https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.012 2019] | ||
**"As the debate on the risks−benefits of electronic-cigarettes continues, a rigorous evidence base is critical. Although determining whether the use of e-cigarettes carries excess risk for future MI is important, it is not possible through the analysis of cross-sectional data, such as the National Health Interview Survey data, from which temporality cannot be inferred. Equally important, we were unable to replicate the authors’ findings. Given the importance of this topic to public health, we request that the authors provide a full and comprehensive explanation for the discrepancies noted and temper their conclusions about “increased risk of myocardial infarction” to reflect the limitations of cross-sectional data." (Bover Manderski, Delnevo) | **"As the debate on the risks−benefits of electronic-cigarettes continues, a rigorous evidence base is critical. Although determining whether the use of e-cigarettes carries excess risk for future MI is important, it is not possible through the analysis of cross-sectional data, such as the National Health Interview Survey data, from which temporality cannot be inferred. Equally important, we were unable to replicate the authors’ findings. Given the importance of this topic to public health, we request that the authors provide a full and comprehensive explanation for the discrepancies noted and temper their conclusions about “increased risk of myocardial infarction” to reflect the limitations of cross-sectional data." (Bover Manderski, Singh, Delnevo) | ||
*See also: [https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.11.013 2018] | *See also: [https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.11.013 2018] | ||
**"Our findings show the well-established limitations of cross-sectional studies, which cannot justify any claims about causal inference, as mentioned in the conclusion by Alzahrani and colleagues.1 Therefore, the conclusion of their study is incorrect and should be revised." (Farsalinos, Niaura) | **"Our findings show the well-established limitations of cross-sectional studies, which cannot justify any claims about causal inference, as mentioned in the conclusion by Alzahrani and colleagues.1 Therefore, the conclusion of their study is incorrect and should be revised." (Farsalinos, Niaura) | ||