A Prospective Study of Cigarette Smoking and Risk of Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Men
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Clinical risk factors for age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2010) · cites this paper as [34]
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.
- ORCID
- Christen, William G.
- Venue
- JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- 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