Cited by 18

Use of Swedish smokeless tobacco (snus) and the risk of Type 2 diabetes and latent autoimmune diabetes of adulthood (LADA)

Rasouli, B., Andersson, T., Carlsson, P.‐O., Grill, V., Groop, L., Martinell, M., Midthjell, K., Storm, P. +2 more·2017·Diabetic Medicine

Abstract

Aims: It has been suggested that moist snuff (snus), a smokeless tobacco product that is high in nicotine and widespread in Scandinavia, increases the risk of Type 2 diabetes. Previous studies are however few, contradictory and, with regard to autoimmune diabetes, lacking. Our aim was to study the association between snus use and the risk of Type 2 diabetes and latent autoimmune diabetes of adulthood (LADA). Method: Analyses were based on incident cases (Type 2 diabetes, n = 724; LADA, n = 200) and population‐based controls (n = 699) from a Swedish case–control study. Additional analyses were performed on cross‐sectional data from the Norwegian HUNT study (n = 21 473) with 829 prevalent cases of Type 2 diabetes. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated adjusted for age, BMI family history of diabetes and smoking. Only men were included. Results: No association between snus use and Type 2 diabetes or LADA was seen in the Swedish data. For Type 2 diabetes, the OR for > 10 box‐years was 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47 to 2.11] and for LADA 1.01 (95% CI, 0.45 to 2.29). Similarly, in HUNT, the OR for Type 2 diabetes in ever‐users was estimated at 0.91 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.10) and in heavy users at 0.92 (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.83). Conclusion: The risk of Type 2 diabetes and LADA is unrelated to the use of snus, despite its high nicotine content. This opens the possibility of the increased risk of Type 2 diabetes seen in smokers may not be attributed to nicotine, but to other substances in tobacco smoke.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dme.13179

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • There is no association between snus use and odds of diabetes type 2 in a Swedish study (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.47-2.11) and in a Norwegian study (OR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.75-1.10 for ever users; OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.46-1.83 for heavy users).

    “No association between snus use and odds of diabetes type 2 in Swedish study (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.47-2.11)and in Norwegian study (OR = 0.91; 95% CI; 0.75-1.10for diabetes type 2 in snus ever users; OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.46-1.83for diabetes type 2 in heavy snus users) (Rasouli et al. 2017)”
  • There is no association between using snus and odds of diabetes type 2 or latent autoimmune diabetes in adults in Swedish and Norwegian studies.

    “no association between using snus and odds of diabetes type 2 or latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA) in Swedish study (OR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.47-2.11for diabetes type 2; OR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.45-2.29 for LADA), as well as in Norwegian study (OR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.75-1.10for diabetes type 2 in snus ever users; OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.46-1.83for diabetes type 2 in heavy snus users) (Rasouli et al.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rasouli, B., Andersson, T., Carlsson, P. ‐., Grill, V., Groop, L., Martinell, M., Midthjell, K., Storm, P., Tuomi, T., & Carlsson, S.
Venue
Diabetic Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-07-31
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
514-521
ISSN
  • 0742-3071
  • 1464-5491
Cited by
18
References
1
Language
en
Funders
  • Medicinska Forskningsrådet
  • Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd
  • AFA Försäkring
  • Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet

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