Cited by 14Smoking Behavior and CessationChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Variation in saliva cotinine as a function of self-reported attempts to reduce cigarette consumption

Fidler, Jennifer A., Stapleton, John A., West, Robert·2011·Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Rationale Cotinine is an accurate objective marker of nicotine intake. There is very little information on its stability over time or as a function of self-reported attempts at smoking reduction.Objectives This study aimed to assess the stability of saliva cotinine concentrations over a 3-month period, as a function of self-reported attempts to reduce cigarette consumption, using data from a general population sample of English smokers.Methods Six-hundred and ninety-one smokers from a population sample of English smokers provided saliva samples for cotinine analysis on two occasions 3 months apart. Data on cigarette consumption, whether smokers reported that they were attempting to cut down consumption and concurrent use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), were also collected on both occasions.Results The 'test-retest' measure of cotinine stability was 0.76, and the simple correlation was 0.73. Smokers not using NRT who reported cutting down on one occasion but not the other showed a small reduction in cigarette consumption at the time they were cutting down (1.1 cig per day, p = 0.013) but no significant difference in saliva cotinine concentrations (mean reduction = 13.4 ng/ml, p = 0.39).Conclusions Saliva cotinine concentrations show moderate-to-high stability within subjects over a 3-month period. Smokers' reports of attempting to cut down their smoking are associated with small daily cigarette consumption decreases but no detectable change in nicotine intake.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00213-011-2317-1

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fidler, J. A., Stapleton, J. A., & West, R.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Fidler, Jennifer A.
Venue
Psychopharmacology
Published
2011-05-10
Volume
217
Issue
4
Pages
587-593
ISSN
  • 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2072
OpenAlex
W2029401380
Cited by
14
References
22
Citations by year
2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Cancer Research UK
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Johnson and Johnson
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
saliva cotinine, nicotine use, smoking reduction, test-retest stability, nicotine replacement therapy, cigarette consumption, biomarker validity, smokers
MeSH terms
Adult, Cotinine, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Saliva, Smoking, Biomarkers, Smoking Cessation, Behavior, Addictive, Self Report

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