FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1876698103> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1876698103 endingPage "2288" @default.
• W1876698103 startingPage "2287" @default.
• W1876698103 abstract "Dr. Rodu and colleagues have made several comments regarding our article1 that merit a response. First, Rodu et al identified an inconsistency in the reporting of our analyses examining whether electronic cigarette (E-cigarette) users and nonusers differed in their smoking cessation outcomes. Shortly after the online publication of our article, we discovered a formatting error (reference group mislabelings) in Table 2, resulting in a discrepancy between the text and table reporting of the findings.1 An erratum was submitted and published on November 25, 2014. The text and table are now consistent in reporting the equivalence of follow-up smoking cessation outcomes for e-cigarette users and nonusers using the complete case analysis (CCA) and the higher abstinence rate for nonusers with the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. We regret this inadvertent error. Second, Rodu et al raise concerns regarding selection bias. We are aware that selection bias may be a concern in observational studies in which an important predictor is not randomized. In this specific case, Rodu and colleagues critiqued that the patients' current use of E-cigarettes was not randomized. In an effort to address these concerns, a straightforward propensity score adjustment was performed and it made no substantive difference in our main conclusions. Specifically, the propensity score model fitted log odds of current E-cigarette use as a function of age, sex, cancer diagnosis, and other factors found to be associated with the use of E-cigarettes. We then added this propensity score covariate to the logistic regression models reported in Table 2.1 This adjustment made slight changes in the odds ratios, but no difference in the statistical significance of the covariates at the .05 level. In future studies, more sophisticated matching algorithms to address potential selection bias may be applied. Next, Rodu et al questioned our presentation of CCA and ITT analyses. Consistent with recommended standards for reporting smoking abstinence in treatment programs and clinical trials,2-4 we present both CCA and ITT analyses. For the ITT analysis, we included all patients who enrolled in the tobacco treatment program in the outcome analyses and assumed all patients whose follow-up smoking status could not be determined to be smoking cigarettes. We acknowledge the limitations of these analytic models,5, 6 appreciate the challenge of dealing with missing binary data when reporting cessation outcomes (particularly within the context of differential rates of follow-up), and chose to present both the CCA and ITT models. This method is consistent with current abstinence reporting practices2, 3 and readily allows for comparisons between our outcomes and those of other prior studies. In a recent analysis of missing data models, Witkiewitz et al concluded that missing data did not appear to significantly influence smoking outcomes after controlling for nicotine dependence level and therefore we included nicotine dependence in our analyses.7 The clinic coordinator responsible for the follow-up assessment was blinded with regard to patients' E-cigarette use status. The follow-up data collection efforts were identical for E-cigarette users and nonusers. We know of no peer-reviewed recommendation for reporting smoking abstinence that assumes that patients lost to follow-up be treated as nonsmokers. This assumption is not consistent with the high rates of persistent smoking reported among patients with cancer. Rodu et al further requested that we more fully explore potential selection bias in current E-cigarette use by revising Table 1 in our study1 to include, in addition to the 414 completers, dropouts (367 patients who were lost to follow-up or had died at the time of last follow-up) and patients who were not yet due for outcome assessment (293 patients). This would not resolve the bias issue because it would only introduce additional nonevaluable abstinence outcomes, including the missing data for the 367 dropouts and unknown abstinence data for the 293 patients not yet due for outcome assessment. Although it would add more descriptive data regarding the differences between E-cigarette users and nonusers, it would not shed any new light on the abstinence rates through better control over a possible selection bias in the covariate of current E-cigarette use. Existing statistical methods, such as the propensity score adjustment described above, would delete a case by default unless the adjustment or propensity matching is linked to an evaluable, nonmissing outcome (barring ITT or imputation). This leaves the 414 completers, the only pragmatic and possibly most prudent choice of a sample in a selection bias adjustment. As reported in Table 1, the only significant difference was found in the number of past quit attempts (at least 2 vs never or once),1 which was included in our attempt in propensity score adjustment above. We agree that the dramatic observation of a 3-fold increase in the use of E-cigarettes among tobacco-dependent patients with cancer is striking and suggestive of patients' effort to mitigate the risks of persistent smoking of combustible cigarettes. However, these trends should be compared with use patterns among smokers, particularly those who are likely motivated to quit, rather than the general population.8 We strongly agree that further research examining the potential benefits and harms of E-cigarette use among patients with cancer who are trying to quit is warranted. The risks of persistent smoking among patients with cancer should guide oncologists to discuss the known and unknown safety and efficacy of E-cigarettes and recommend evidence-based cessation treatment.9 No specific funding was disclosed. The authors made no disclosures. Sarah P. Borderud, MPH Yuelin Li, PhD Jack E. Burkhalter, PhD Behavioral Sciences Service Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York Christine E. Sheffer, PhD Department of Community Health and Social Medicine Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education City College of New York New York Jamie S. Ostroff, PhD Behavioral Sciences Service Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York, New York" @default.
• W1876698103 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1876698103 creator A5013172623 @default.
• W1876698103 creator A5026098853 @default.
• W1876698103 creator A5039404329 @default.
• W1876698103 creator A5044941492 @default.
• W1876698103 creator A5059666590 @default.
• W1876698103 date "2015-03-04" @default.
• W1876698103 modified "2023-10-09" @default.
• W1876698103 title "Reply to discrepant results for smoking and cessation among electronic cigarette users" @default.
• W1876698103 cites W1581663723 @default.
• W1876698103 cites W1594431256 @default.
• W1876698103 cites W1804918541 @default.
• W1876698103 cites W2019742673 @default.
• W1876698103 cites W2092606934 @default.
• W1876698103 cites W2095324703 @default.
• W1876698103 cites W2115129983 @default.
• W1876698103 cites W2138106394 @default.
• W1876698103 cites W2417827962 @default.
• W1876698103 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29306" @default.
• W1876698103 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4994188" @default.
• W1876698103 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25740086" @default.
• W1876698103 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W1876698103 type Work @default.
• W1876698103 sameAs 1876698103 @default.
• W1876698103 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W1876698103 countsByYear W18766981032018 @default.
• W1876698103 countsByYear W18766981032020 @default.
• W1876698103 countsByYear W18766981032021 @default.
• W1876698103 countsByYear W18766981032022 @default.
• W1876698103 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1876698103 hasAuthorship W1876698103A5013172623 @default.
• W1876698103 hasAuthorship W1876698103A5026098853 @default.
• W1876698103 hasAuthorship W1876698103A5039404329 @default.
• W1876698103 hasAuthorship W1876698103A5044941492 @default.
• W1876698103 hasAuthorship W1876698103A5059666590 @default.
• W1876698103 hasBestOaLocation W18766981031 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C119043178 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C143095724 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C151956035 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C156957248 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C17923572 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C23131810 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C2777843972 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C2780687700 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C40423286 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C50817715 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C105795698 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C118552586 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C119043178 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C126322002 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C142724271 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C143095724 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C144024400 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C149923435 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C151956035 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C156957248 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C17923572 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C23131810 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C2777843972 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C2780687700 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C33923547 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C40423286 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C50817715 @default.
• W1876698103 hasConceptScore W1876698103C71924100 @default.
• W1876698103 hasIssue "13" @default.
• W1876698103 hasLocation W18766981031 @default.
• W1876698103 hasLocation W18766981032 @default.
• W1876698103 hasLocation W18766981033 @default.
• W1876698103 hasLocation W18766981034 @default.
• W1876698103 hasOpenAccess W1876698103 @default.
• W1876698103 hasPrimaryLocation W18766981031 @default.
• W1876698103 hasRelatedWork W1947085858 @default.
• W1876698103 hasRelatedWork W2014796953 @default.
• W1876698103 hasRelatedWork W2101991911 @default.
• W1876698103 hasRelatedWork W2112420322 @default.
• W1876698103 hasRelatedWork W2168206775 @default.
• W1876698103 hasRelatedWork W2174986909 @default.
• W1876698103 hasRelatedWork W2799965970 @default.
• W1876698103 hasRelatedWork W2901259384 @default.
• W1876698103 hasRelatedWork W3023061746 @default.
• W1876698103 hasRelatedWork W4376155396 @default.
• W1876698103 hasVolume "121" @default.
• W1876698103 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1876698103 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1876698103 magId "1876698103" @default.
• W1876698103 workType "article" @default.