Cited by 46Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsSmoking Behavior and CessationRetinal Imaging and Analysis

Smoking history and the incidence of age-related macular degeneration—Results from the Muenster Aging and Retina Study (MARS) cohort and systematic review and meta-analysis of observational longitudinal studies

Neuner, Bruno, Komm, Alexander, Wellmann, Juergen, Dietzel, Martha, Pauleikhoff, Daniel, Walter, Jan, Busch, Markus, Hense, Hans-Werner·2009·Addictive Behaviors

Abstract

To compare the association of smoking with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in the Muenster Aging and Retina Study (MARS) cohort with current evidence. Adjusted risk ratios for incident AMD in MARS were compared with findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational prospective studies. 9.6% of MARS participants progressed to AMD over a median of 30.9 months. In MARS the adjusted risk ratio in current versus never smokers was 3.25 (95% confidence interval [1.50-7.06]), and 1.28 [0.70-2.33] in former smokers versus never smokers. The meta-analysis of previous studies showed a pooled adjusted risk ratio of 2.51 [1.09-5.76] in current versus never smokers. Inclusion of the MARS findings removed between-study heterogeneity and accentuated the pooled adjusted risk ratio for current smokers to 2.75 [1.52-4.98]. Specific analyses in MARS revealed a protective effect for time since smoking cessation in former smokers with an adjusted risk ratio=0.50 [0.29-0.89] per log(year). Current smoking nearly triples AMD incidence, while smoking cessation lowers AMD incidence in a non-linear fashion even in the elderly.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.05.015

Cites

84 of 84 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?

  • Smoking is a well-documented AMD risk factor, and a recent meta-analysis showed that current smoking nearly triples AMD incidence.

    “Smoking, a common mechanism for generating oxidative stress, is a well-documented AMD risk factor, and a recent meta-analysis showed that current smoking nearly triples AMD incidence (Neuner et al., 2009).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neuner, B., Komm, A., Wellmann, J., Dietzel, M., Pauleikhoff, D., Walter, J., Busch, M., & Hense, H.-W.
Affiliations
  • University of Münster (DE)
  • St. Franziskus Hospital (DE)
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
  • Robert Koch Institute (DE)
Corresponding author
Neuner, Bruno
Venue
Addictive Behaviors
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-11
Volume
34
Issue
11
Pages
938-947
ISSN
0306-4603 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2089980564
Cited by
46
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
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
smoking, age-related macular degeneration, smoking cessation, former smokers, current smokers, risk factors, older adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Germany, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Macular Degeneration, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Smoking, Incidence, Smoking Cessation

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