Is moist snuff use associated with excess risk of IHD or stroke? A longitudinal follow-up of snuff users in Sweden
Abstract
Background: The potential risks of Swedish moist snuff (snus) are debated and studies have shown diverging results. Aims: The aim of this study is to investigate whether there is any excess risk of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke from snuff use. Methods: The Swedish Survey of Living Conditions from 1988—89 was record-linked to the Swedish Cause of Death Register and the Swedish Hospital Discharge Register to investigate excess mortality and hospitalization from IHD and stroke. A Poisson regression model was used and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for snuff and smoking were calculated controlling for age, physical activity, self-reported health, number of longstanding illnesses, residential area, and socioeconomic position. Results: Among snuff users there were no excess risks of mortality or hospitalization from IHD (IRR 0.8; 0.5—1.2,) or stroke (IRR 1.1; 0.7—1.8), but, as expected, clear excess risks were found for smokers (IRR 1.7; 1.4—2.1 for IHD, and IRR 1.4; 1.0—1.9 for stroke). Conclusions: This study has not shown any excess risk among users of snuff for IHD or stroke. If there is a risk associated with snuff it is evidently much lower than those associated with smoking.
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?
Among snuff users compared to never-users, there are no excess risks of mortality or hospitalization from ischemic heart disease (IRR = 0.8; 95% CI: 0.5-1.2) or stroke (IRR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.7-1.8).
“no excess risks of mortality or hospitalization from IHD (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.8; 95% CI: 0.5-1.2,)or stroke (IRR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.7-1.8)compared to never-users (Haglund et al. 2007).”
From Comparison of the Health Effects Associated with the Use of Snus and Tobacco-Free Oral Nicotine Pouches: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as Haglund et al. 2007
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Boffetta, P., & Straif, K. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b3060 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Kopa-Stojak, P. N., & Pawliczak, R. (2026) · Exposure and Health · doi:10.1007/s12403-026-00812-w
- Authors
- Haglund, B., Eliasson, M., Stenbeck, M., & Rosen, M.
- Venue
- Scandinavian Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-12
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 618-622
- ISSN
- 1403-4948
- 1651-1905
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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