Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 371

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 265 of the 265 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The association of smoking status with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization and mortality from COVID‐19: a living rapid evidence review with Bayesian meta‐analyses (version 7)

Open access
Simons, David, Shahab, Lion, Brown, Jamie, Perski, Olga·2021·Addiction

Abstract

Aims: To estimate the association of smoking status with rates of (i) infection, (ii) hospitalization, (iii) disease severity and (iv) mortality from SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19 disease. Design: Living rapid review of observational and experimental studies with random‐effects hierarchical Bayesian meta‐analyses. Published articles and pre‐prints were identified via MEDLINE and medRxiv. Setting: Community or hospital, no restrictions on location. Participants: Adults who received a SARS‐CoV‐2 test or a COVID‐19 diagnosis. Measurements: Outcomes were SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization, disease severity and mortality stratified by smoking status. Study quality was assessed (i.e. ‘good’, ‘fair’ and ‘poor’). Findings: Version 7 (searches up to 25 August 2020) included 233 studies with 32 ‘good’ and ‘fair’ quality studies included in meta‐analyses. Fifty‐seven studies (24.5%) reported current, former and never smoking status. Recorded smoking prevalence among people with COVID‐19 was generally lower than national prevalence. Current compared with never smokers were at reduced risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection [relative risk (RR) = 0.74, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.58–0.93, τ = 0.41]. Data for former smokers were inconclusive (RR = 1.05, 95% CrI = 0.95–1.17, τ = 0.17), but favoured there being no important association (21% probability of RR ≥ 1.1). Former compared with never smokers were at somewhat increased risk of hospitalization (RR = 1.20, CrI = 1.03–1.44, τ = 0.17), greater disease severity (RR = 1.52, CrI = 1.13–2.07, τ = 0.29) and mortality (RR = 1.39, 95% CrI = 1.09–1.87, τ = 0.27). Data for current smokers were inconclusive (RR = 1.06, CrI = 0.82–1.35, τ = 0.27; RR = 1.25, CrI = 0.85–1.93, τ = 0.34; RR = 1.22, 95% CrI = 0.78–1.94, τ = 0.49, respectively), but favoured there being no important associations with hospitalization and mortality (35% and 70% probability of RR ≥ 1.1, respectively) and a small but important association with disease severity (79% probability of RR ≥ 1.1). Conclusions: Compared with never smokers, current smokers appear to be at reduced risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, while former smokers appear to be at increased risk of hospitalization, increased disease severity and mortality from COVID‐19. However, it is uncertain whether these associations are causal.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/add.15276

Cites

265 of 265 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 265 references

Cited by

See all 371

Metadata

Authors
Simons, D., Shahab, L., Brown, J., & Perski, O.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-11-17
Volume
116
Issue
6
Pages
1319-1368
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W3083147446
Cited by
371
References
265
FWCI
9.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The association of smoking status with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization and mortality from COVID‐19: a living rapid evidence review with Bayesian meta‐analyses (version 7). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/add.15276
The paper
Simons, D., Shahab, L., Brown, J., & Perski, O. (2021). The association of smoking status with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization and mortality from COVID‐19: a living rapid evidence review with Bayesian meta‐analyses (version 7). Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15276

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.