Hidden flaws in e-cigarette industry-funded studies.

Autor:	Soule EK; Department of Health Education and Promotion, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA soulee18@ecu.edu.; Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA., Rossheim ME; University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas, USA., Livingston MD; Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA., LoParco CR; George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA., Tillett KK; University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas, USA., Eissenberg T; Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA., Sussman S; Departments of Preventive Medicine and Psychology, and School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Pasadena, California, USA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Tobacco control [Tob Control] 2024 Jun 11. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jun 11.
DOI:	10.1136/tc-2024-058609
Abstrakt:	Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use has increased since e-cigarettes were introduced to the market nearly 20 years ago. Researchers continue to conduct studies to understand the health risks and benefits of e-cigarettes to inform health education and promotion efforts as well as public policy. Studies funded by the tobacco industry examining the potential risks and benefits of e-cigarettes have also been conducted and are sometimes published in the scientific literature. Frequently, tobacco and e-cigarette industry-funded researchers report findings that contradict research funded by other sources. While many industry-funded studies may appear methodologically sound at first glance, in some cases, industry-funded studies include methodological flaws that result in misleading conclusions. The tobacco industry's use of biased research to influence tobacco-related policy decisions in the past is well-documented. This commentary provides specific examples of recent e-cigarette research funded by the tobacco/e-cigarette industry in which methodological flaws result in misleading conclusions that support industry goals. Given the long history of biased research conducted by the tobacco industry, there is a need to assess whether research funded by the e-cigarette industry similarly contains methodological flaws. We emphasise the need for tobacco and e-cigarette-funded research to be scrutinised by non-industry-funded subject matter experts and call for journals to not consider manuscripts that have received support from the tobacco or e-cigarette industry. Competing Interests: Competing interests: TE is a paid consultant in litigation against the tobacco industry and also the electronic cigarette industry and is named on one patent for a device that measures the puffing behaviour of electronic cigarette users and a patent application for a smoking cessation intervention. TE and ES are named on a patent application for a smartphone app that determines electronic cigarette device and liquid characteristics. (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu