Cited by 173Smoking Behavior and CessationNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects

Effects of abstinence from tobacco: Etiology, animal models, epidemiology, and significance: A subjective review

Hughes, John·2007·Nicotine & Tobacco Research

Abstract

This article updates a 1990 review of the effects of tobacco abstinence by reviewing (a) the etiology, (b) animal models, (c) the epidemiology, and (d) the clinical significance of tobacco abstinence effects. The author searched several databases to locate more than 3,500 citations on tobacco abstinence effects between 1990 and 2004. For brevity, the review does not evaluate these effects in regard to craving, hunger, or performance. Data collection and study conclusions were based on the author's subjective judgment. The most validated etiological model suggests that withdrawal is related to decreased dopaminergic activity, but how this relates to nicotine receptor changes is unclear. The two most validated animal models describe increases in intracranial self-stimulation thresholds or observable physical signs. Significant withdrawal symptoms occur in at least half of smokers when they try to quit. Withdrawal appears to produce clinically significant distress and impairment. Increases in depression after abstinence, but not other symptoms, prospectively predict relapse. In conclusion, the proposed neurobiological mechanisms by which withdrawal occurs leave several unanswered questions. Although animal models have been developed, how well they mimic withdrawal in humans is unclear. Tobacco withdrawal is common and can be distressing. Withdrawal-induced depression appears to undermine the smoker's ability to remain abstinent.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14622200701188927

Cites

116 of 116 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hughes, J.
Affiliations
University of Vermont (US)
Corresponding author
Hughes, John
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Published
2007-03
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
329-339
ISSN
1462-2203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2100829515
Cited by
173
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
8.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nicotine & Tobacco Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA00490)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Keywords
smoking abstinence, nicotine withdrawal, smoking cessation, withdrawal symptoms, depression, relapse, dopaminergic activity, nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, intracranial self-stimulation
MeSH terms
Animals, Mental Disorders, Disease Models, Animal, Humans, Nicotine, Research Design, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Tobacco Use Disorder, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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