Cited by 621Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects

Biochemical verification of tobacco use and abstinence: 2019 update

Open access
Benowitz, Neal L, Bernert, John T, Foulds, Jonathan, Hecht, Stephen S, Jacob, Peyton, Jarvis, Martin J, Joseph, Anne, Oncken, Cheryl +1 more·2020·Nicotine & Tobacco Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The changing prevalence and patterns of tobacco use, the advent of novel nicotine delivery devices, and the development of new biomarkers prompted an update of the 2002 Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) report on whether and how to apply biomarker verification for tobacco use and abstinence. METHODS: The SRNT Treatment Research Network convened a group of investigators with expertise in tobacco biomarkers to update the recommendations of the 2002 SNRT Biochemical Verification Report. RESULTS: Biochemical verification of tobacco use and abstinence increases scientific rigor and is recommended in clinical trials of smoking cessation, when feasible. Sources, appropriate biospecimens, cutpoints, time of detection windows and analytic methods for carbon monoxide, cotinine (including over the counter tests), total nicotine equivalents, minor tobacco alkaloids, and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol are reviewed, as well as biochemical approaches to distinguishing cigarette smoking from use of electronic nicotine delivery devices (ENDS). CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations are provided for whether and how to use biochemical verification of tobacco use and abstinence. Guidelines are provided on which biomarkers to use, which biospecimens to use, optimal cutpoints, time windows to detection, and methodology for biochemical verifications. Use of combinations of biomarkers is recommended for assessment of ENDS use. IMPLICATIONS: Biochemical verification increases scientific rigor, but there are drawbacks that need to be assessed to determine whether the benefits of biochemical verification outweigh the costs, including the cost of the assays, the feasibility of sample collection, the ability to draw clear conclusions based on the duration of abstinence, and the variability of the assay within the study population. This paper provides updated recommendations from the 2002 SRNT report on whether and how to use biochemical markers in determining tobacco use and abstinence.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ntr/ntz132

Cites

119 of 119 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Abstinence outcomes are reliable in studies in which biochemical verification is not feasible, such as those in which data are collected by phone or through the internet or when personal contact is limited.

    “authors like Benowitz et al. (2020) and West et al. (2005) suggest that abstinence outcomes are also reliable in those studies in which biochemical verification is not feasible, such as those in which the data are collected by phone or through the internet or when personal contact is limited.”

    From Evaluation of effectiveness and acceptability of a psychological treatment for smoking cessation combined with a smartphone App: A pilot study (2024) · cites this paper as Benowitz et al., 2020

    In the Introduction section “Is Bioverification of Quitters Necessary?” (page unavailable), the paper says validation may not be feasible in quitline-based trials and that self-report has often been considered adequate in the absence of special circumstances. It does not establish that abstinence outcomes are reliable specifically when data are collected by phone or internet or personal contact is limited; it also warns about misreported abstinence and recommends verification when feasible. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 121 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Benowitz, N. L., Bernert, J. T., Foulds, J., Hecht, S. S., Jacob, P., Jarvis, M. J., Joseph, A., Oncken, C., & Piper, M. E.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Benowitz, Neal L
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Published
2019-10-01
Volume
22
Issue
7
Pages
1086-1097
ISSN
  • 1462-2203 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-994X
OpenAlex
W2978389675
Cited by
619
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 99 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 107 · 2023: 103 · 2022: 87 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 4
FWCI
6.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nicotine & Tobacco Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (CC999999)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Keywords
tobacco use, smoking abstinence, biomarkers, cotinine, carbon monoxide, electronic cigarettes, NNAL, biological specimen, detection window
MeSH terms
Cigarette Smoking, Carbon Monoxide, Cotinine, Humans, Nicotine, United States, Biomarkers, Smoking Cessation, Tobacco Products

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