The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Maternal snuff use and cotinine in late pregnancy—A validation study
Abstract
Introduction: Oral moist snuff is widely used in Sweden including during pregnancy. Maternal snuff use has been associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes in epidemiological studies. Self‐reported maternal snuff use has not been validated previously. The main objective of this study was to validate self‐reported snuff use in pregnancy in a prospective cohort study and in the Medical Birth Register. Material and methods: A prospective Swedish cohort study, 2005‐2011, in which 572 women were asked to participate. Of 474 recruited women, 381 non‐smokers (263 snuff users and 118 non‐tobacco users) were included in the main analyses. Participants prospectively reported snuff use through questionnaires. Medical Birth Register data on the participants was obtained. Maternal urine cotinine was collected in late pregnancy and was used as a biomarker. Results: Cotinine levels in maternal urine confirmed a high validity of self‐reported snuff use through questionnaires in late pregnancy; sensitivity and specificity values were 98% and 96%, respectively. In the Medical Birth Register, 45% of the snuff users were misclassified as nonusers in late pregnancy. There were significant differences in median cotinine levels between users of mini pouches and users of standard pouches, but there was a great difference of cotinine levels among users with similar number of pouches used daily. Conclusions: Self‐reported snuff use through questionnaires has high validity. In the Medical Birth Register, in late pregnancy, many snuff users were misclassified as nonusers. As a consequence, there is a risk of underestimating the harmful effects of snuff use when using late pregnancy Medical Birth Register data.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“However, self-reported smoking and snuff use in pregnancy has been proved a valid proxy for nicotine levels in blood.34,35”
From Association of maternal snuff use and smoking with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: a national register study (2023) · cites this paper as [35]
In the citing paper
“However, a previous validation study, based on a sub-cohort of the women included in the MBR register, showed that the mean nicotine dose of women who continued to use snuff during pregnancy was 46 mg/day in early pregnancy (corresponds to 5–6 pouches/daily) and 36 mg/day (corresponds to 3–4 pouches daily) among those who quit in early pregnancy.35”
From Association of maternal snuff use and smoking with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: a national register study (2023) · cites this paper as [35]
In the citing paper
“The validation study also showed that women using NRT in pregnancy continued to consume snuff. Among the women who stopped using snuff, none was using NRT.35”
From Association of maternal snuff use and smoking with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: a national register study (2023) · cites this paper as [35]
Citations
Cites
Cnattingius, S. (2004) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1080/14622200410001669187 · Cited by 1,126
Self-citationDietz, P. M., Homa, D., England, L. J., Burley, K., Tong, V. T., Dube, S. R., & Bernert, J. T. (2011) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwq381 · Cited by 276
Self-reported nicotine exposure and plasma levels of cotinine in early and late pregnancy
GEORGE, L., GRANATH, F., JOHANSSON, A. L. V., & CNATTINGIUS, S. (2006) · Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1080/00016340600935433 · Cited by 192
Gunnerbeck, A., Edstedt Bonamy, A.-K., Wikström, A.-K., Granath, F., Wickström, R., & Cnattingius, S. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084715 · Cited by 58
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- 10.1111/1471-0528.14213 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1542/peds.2010-3811 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/ntr/ntt117 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/ntr/ntn010 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/14622200701491255 · DOI
- 10.1080/14622200210123581 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a017925 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jchromb.2010.12.012 · DOI
- 10.2105/AJPH.2008.144485 · DOI
- Tong VT, 2013, Trends in smoking before, during, and after pregnancy—Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, United States, 40 sites, 2000‐2010, MMWR Surveill Summ, 62, 1
- 10.1177/08959374970110030501 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/aje/153.10.954 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2005.00660.x · DOI
- 10.1124/jpet.301.2.594 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1056/NEJM198811173192005 · DOI
- 10.1093/aje/kwu182 · DOI
- 10.1136/tc.2004.008789 · DOI
- 10.1038/pr.2012.36 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1046/j.1365-3016.2001.00321.x · DOI
- 10.1097/00124784-200307000-00011 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10995-005-0022-6 · DOI
- Mattsson K, 2016, Cotinine validation of self‐reported smoking during pregnancy in the Swedish Medical Birth Register, Nicotine Tob Res, 18, 79
- 10.1016/j.wombi.2009.05.002 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gunnerbeck, A., Lundholm, C., Rhedin, S., Mitha, A., Chen, R., D’Onofrio, B. M., & Almqvist, C. (2023) · Pediatric Research · doi:10.1038/s41390-022-02463-4 · Cited by 27
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gunnerbeck, A., Raaschou, P., Cnattingius, S., Edstedt Bonamy, A., & Wickström, R.
- Venue
- Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-07-20
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1373-1380
- ISSN
- 0001-6349
- 1600-0412
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 4
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Stockholms Läns Landsting (20150658, 20110119, 20110741)
- Medicinska Forskningsrådet (521‐2009‐4884)
- Stiftelsen Samariten
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: Maternal snuff use and cotinine in late pregnancy—A validation study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/aogs.13410
- The paper
- Gunnerbeck, A., Raaschou, P., Cnattingius, S., Edstedt Bonamy, A., & Wickström, R. (2018). Maternal snuff use and cotinine in late pregnancy—A validation study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13410