Cited by 320Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsSmoking Behavior and CessationRetinal Imaging and Analysis

A Prospective Study of Cigarette Smoking and Risk of Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Men

Christen, William G.·1996·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between cigarette smoking and the incidence of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in men. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with average person-years of follow-up for AMD of 12.2 years. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 21 157 US male physicians participating in the Physicians' Health Study who did not have a diagnosis of AMD at baseline, were followed for at least 7 years, and had known levels of baseline smoking. Based on information reported at baseline, 11% were current smokers, 39% were past smokers, and 50% were never smokers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incident AMD, defined as a self-report that was confirmed by medical record, review, first diagnosed after randomization, and responsible for vision loss to 20/30 or worse. RESULTS: A total of 268 incident cases of AMD with vision loss were confirmed. In multivariate analysis, current smokers of 20 or more cigarettes per day, compared with never smokers, had an increased risk of AMD (relative risk [RR], 2.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60-3.79). Past smokers had a modest elevation in risk of AMD (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.99-1.70). For current smokers of fewer than 20 cigarettes per day, there was a nonsignificant 26% increased risk of AMD (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.61-2.59). CONCLUSIONS: These prospective data provide support for the hypothesis that cigarette smoking increases the risk of developing AMD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1996.03540140035023

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The systematic review included 18 prospective and cross-sectional studies and 8 case control studies, contributing 94,058 patients and 3,178 late AMD cases.

    “In total, data from 18 prospective, cross-sectional studies and 8 case control studies [12,24-26,28,30,31,33-47,49-54,57-73] were included in the final analysis, contributing a sample of some 94,058 patients (ranging from 261 to 22,071) including 3,178 (ranging from 8 to 776) late AMD cases.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 320

Authors
Christen, W. G.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Christen, William G.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Published
1996-10-09
Volume
276
Issue
14
Pages
1147
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2045684086
Cited by
320
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
FWCI
16.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL-34595, R01HL034595)
  • National Eye Institute (EY06633, R01EY006633, EY03355)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
cigarette smoking, age-related macular degeneration, men, vision loss, Physicians' Health Study, former smokers, current smokers
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Macular Degeneration, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Smoking, Cohort Studies, Incidence, Multivariate Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review