Cited by 42

Is moist snuff use associated with excess risk of IHD or stroke? A longitudinal follow-up of snuff users in Sweden

Haglund, Bengt, Eliasson, Mats, Stenbeck, Magnus, Rosen, Måns·2007·Scandinavian Journal of Public Health

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

Crossref · 10.1080/14034940701436949

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?

Authors
Haglund, B., Eliasson, M., Stenbeck, M., & Rosen, M.
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health
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