Cited by 135Smoking Behavior and CessationChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Smoking topography: Reliability and validity in dependent smokers

Pickworth, Wallace, Lee, Eun, Malson, Jennifer, Moolchan, Eric, Waters, Andrew·2003·Nicotine & Tobacco Research

Abstract

Data from two studies were analyzed to determine whether smoking through the mouthpiece of a topography unit yields consistent measures over time and to verify that smoking through a mouthpiece results in a similar degree of smoke exposure as conventional smoking. In both studies, subjects smoked their usual brand of cigarette ad libitum. In study A, subjects (n=7) smoked through a mouthpiece on 4 separate experimental days. In study B, subjects (n=10) smoked on 2 separate days: Once conventionally and once through a mouthpiece. In both studies, exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) and physiological effects (heart rate and blood pressure) were measured before and after smoking. In study B, plasma nicotine concentrations also were measured. In study A, puff volume, puff duration, interpuff interval, and maximum puff velocity averaged 30.8 ml,.9 s, 19.9 s, and 44.6 ml/s, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients computed for puff volume (0.66), puff duration (0.75), and maximum puff velocity (0.68) indicated that these measures showed good reliability. In study B, smoking through the mouthpiece yielded similar topographical (time to smoke and number of puffs per cigarette) measures as conventional smoking. Also similar were changes in biochemical values: Plasma nicotine (18.5 ng/ml vs. 25.5 ng/ml), exhaled CO (4.6 ppm vs. 5.1 ppm), and heart rate (8.6 beats/min vs. 7.4 beats/min) for conventional and topography mouthpiece smoking conditions, respectively. Topography measures did not differ significantly between the two studies. Overall, the data from these two small-sample studies suggest that smoking topography provides a valid and reliable index of conventional smoking and an indirect measure of smoke exposure.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1462220031000158645

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pickworth, W., Lee, E., Malson, J., Moolchan, E., & Waters, A.
Affiliations
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Pickworth, Wallace
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Published
2003-10-01
Volume
5
Issue
5
Pages
673-679
ISSN
  • 1462-2203 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-994X
OpenAlex
W2034220105
Cited by
135
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nicotine & Tobacco Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P50CA084718, P50-CA84718)
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
smoking topography, cigarette smoking, puff volume, puff duration, exhaled carbon monoxide, plasma nicotine, heart rate, blood pressure, smoke exposure, reliability statistics, validity
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Pressure, Carbon Monoxide, Equipment Design, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Models, Theoretical, Sensitivity and Specificity, Smoking, Tobacco Use Disorder, Reproducibility of Results

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