Tobacco Control

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Tobacco Control 2006;15:71-72; doi:10.1136/tc.2005.014589
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bjartveit, K
Right arrow Articles by Tverdal, A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bjartveit, K
Right arrow Articles by Tverdal, A

LETTER

Health consequences of smoking 1–4 cigarettes per day: response to G F Cope (eletter to journal)

K Bjartveit1, A Tverdal2

1 National Health Screening Service, Oslo, Norway
2 Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway

Correspondence to:
K Bjartveit
kjell.bjartveit@chello.no

Keywords: cigarette consumption; thiocyanate

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

We thank Dr Graham F Cope for his valuable remarks, and agree that underreporting of daily cigarette consumption might be of importance when assessing the risk in light smokers.1

Dr Cope refers to two papers: a cross sectional randomised study on smoking reduction in pregnant women, and an assessment of smoking status in patients with peripheral arterial disease.2,3 Our study did not concentrate on subgroups in need of regular medical attention; it covered all residents aged 35–49 years, except people with a history or symptoms indicating cardiovascular diseases (among them peripheral arterial disease) and diabetes.4 A general population in the 1970s may be less inclined to underreport consumption, than present day pregnant women and sick people, who do not want to incur the disapproval of the healthcare professionals.

Based on a review and meta-analysis, Patrick and co-workers found that interviewer administered questionnaires, observational studies, reports by adults, and biochemical validation . . . [Full text of this article]







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.