Nicotine - Retracted Studies, Papers, and Articles: Difference between revisions

==Cessation==

*"However, the authors’ conclusions are based on questionable methodological decisions and flawed analyses. Most notably:

**A. The joinpoint analysis of declining cigarette smoking is incorrectly conducted, in a way that obscures more rapid declines in current cigarette smoking after 2002;

**C. Analyses focus on an inappropriately narrow time window that does not fully capture the relevant dynamics. Together these flaws substantially underestimate the degree to which e-cigarettes may have displaced or offset cigarette smoking among youth and young adults.

**Moreover, the conclusion that e-cigarette uptake is independent of the declines in cigarette smoking runs counter to a large and varied body of evidence that e-cigarettes substitute for or displace cigarettes. The authors only discuss two such papers, attempting to undermine their conclusions using some of the same flaws that underlie their own analyses, and neglect to mention the larger body of evidence. Together, this yields an article that could cause readers to hold a distorted view of the available evidence on these important issues." (Selya, Gitchell, Foxon, Sembower, Niaura)

*Multiple Comments, many linking to more information

**"The most obvious issue is that the result is based on studies that have no bearing on whether e-cigarettes are effective or not. This is because vapers who successfully quit smoking were excluded and only those who failed to do so were retained. The studies were not at fault, they were just not set up to evaluate quit rates in smokers who try and not try vaping. The fault is with misinterpreting their results. The letter in LRM referenced above provides more details." (Hajek)

*[https://antithrlies.com/2016/01/17/sunday-science-lesson-what-is-meta-analysis-and-why-was-glantzs-inherently-junk/ Sunday Science Lesson: What is “meta-analysis”? (and why was Glantz’s inherently junk?)]

**"Glantz’s meta-analysis is not just junk science because of details about the studies, though those are problems in themselves. It is junk science because there are probably not even two of the studies in his collection that are similar enough to average together, let alone all of them." (Phillips)

==COVID==