Exact(1)
The authors comment that "The present study gives no indication for an additional risk of ever smoking mentholated cigarettes if total amount of smoking is taken into account.
Similar(59)
The amount of smoking exposure in ex-smokers and current smokers combined was sorted into quartiles based on total number of cigarettes smoked: 100 1800 cigarettes (equivalent to 0.3 4.9 pack-years), 1801 6000 cigarettes (4.9 16.4 pack-years), 6001 12 000 cigarettes (16.4 32.9 pack-years), and more than 12 000 cigarettes (>32.9 pack-years).
The study found that despite the implementation of a smoke-free policy incorporating a total smoking ban and the provision of NRT four years previously, a substantial amount of smoking continued in the inpatient facility.
Distinguishing the amount of smoking further highlighted the importance of examining heavy smoking separately from occasional smoking, ex-smoking and non-smoking.
The multivariate-adjusted model of age of starting smoking among current-smokers was additionally adjusted for th4e amount of smoking.
After adjustment for total amount of tobacco smoking and also for the matching variables, via conditional logistic regression, the RR for ever smoking menthol cigarettes was 1.12 (CI 0.68-1.83).
The total amount of cigarettes smoked in pack-years is important knowledge when estimating the harmful effects of smoking as well as when aiming to quit smoking [ 29].
Thus, the amount of smoking exposure was analyzed based on the number of packs of cigarettes smoked per day.
Although pack-years of smoking is typically used to quantify the cumulative amount of smoking, the duration of smoking is not well-represented.
It has six items assessing amount of smoking, the time of the first cigarette after waking, smoking or not smoking in case of illness, ability to refrain from smoking in non-smoking place, reporting or not reporting the first cigarette of the day as the most difficult to give up, and smoking or not smoking more heavily in the morning.
The amount of smoking (in pack years) was determined.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com