Cited by 1,079Smoking Behavior and CessationSurvey Methodology and NonresponseChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research

The accuracy of self-reported smoking: A systematic review of the relationship between self-reported and cotinine-assessed smoking status

Gorber, Sarah Connor, Schofield-Hurwitz, Sean, Hardt, Jill, Levasseur, Geneviève, Tremblay, Mark·2009·Nicotine & Tobacco Research

Abstract

Introduction Smoking is a leading cause of premature mortality and preventable morbidity. Surveillance is most often based on self-reported data, but studies have shown that self-reports tend to underestimate smoking status. Methods This study systematically reviewed the literature to measure the concordance between self-reported smoking status and smoking status determined through measures of cotinine in biological fluids. Four electronic databases were searched to identify observational and experimental studies on adult populations over the age of 18 years. Results Searching identified 67 studies that met the eligibility criteria and examined the relationship between self-reported smoking and smoking confirmed by cotinine measurement. Overall, the data show trends of underestimation when smoking prevalence is based on self-report and varying sensitivity levels for self-reported estimates depending on the population studied and the medium in which the biological sample is measured. Sensitivity values were consistently higher when cotinine was measured in saliva instead of urine or blood. Meta-analysis was not appropriate because of the substantial heterogeneity among the cutpoints used to define smokers and the poor reporting on outcomes of interest. Discussion Further research in this field would benefit from the standardization of cutpoints to define current smokers and the implementation of standard reporting guidelines to enhance comparability across studies. Accurate es…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ntr/ntn010

Cites

5 of 5 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
Gorber, S. C., Schofield-Hurwitz, S., Hardt, J., Levasseur, G., & Tremblay, M.
Affiliations
Statistics Canada (CA)
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Published
2009-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
12-24
ISSN
  • 1462-2203 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-994X
OpenAlex
W2016893440
Cited by
1,079
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 86 · 2017: 84 · 2016: 85 · 2015: 81 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 63 · 2012: 39
FWCI
4.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nicotine & Tobacco Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Keywords
self-reported smoking, cotinine, smoking status, measurement accuracy, saliva cotinine, urinary cotinine, sensitivity, tobacco surveillance
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cotinine, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Saliva, Self Disclosure, Sensitivity and Specificity, Smoking, Truth Disclosure, Biomarkers, Prevalence, 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