This Article Full Text Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Glantz, S. A. Articles by Parmley, W. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Glantz, S. A. Articles by Parmley, W. W.

(Circulation. 1996;94:596-598.)
© 1996 American Heart Association, Inc.

Articles

Passive and Active Smoking

A Problem for Adults

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD; William W. Parmley, MD

the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.

Correspondence to Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, Professor of Medicine, Box 0124, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-0124. E-mail glantz@cardio.ucsf.edu.

Key Words: Editorials • smoking • coronary disease

	Introduction

 
Over the last 10 years, 14 epidemiological studies^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14} and experimental studies^{15 16 17} have consistently shown that passive smoking increases the risk of heart disease death. Combining these studies in a meta-analysis yields an estimate that passive smoking significantly increases the risk of death from heart disease by about 20% (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.4). As with the evidence that passive smoking causes lung cancer,^{18 19 20} the tobacco industry has vigorously attacked these studies as too small, biased, or failing to control for confounding variables adequately. These arguments have become harder to make over time as the number and quality of epidemiological studies on both lung cancer and heart disease have improved, so the tobacco industry has started to emphasize a new explanation: publication bias.

For example, in the 1994-1995 hearings held by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on a proposed rule making workplaces smoke free,²¹ several of the tobacco industry's witnesses argued that the reason that there were so many studies in the literature showing an elevation in risk of death associated with passive smoking was that journals simply did not publish "negative" studies because of a bias on the part of editors against the tobacco industry despite the fact that formal studies of the question of publication bias demonstrated that at least in the case of passive smoking, no such bias existed. Faced with this evidence, the tobacco industry took the argument one step further and said that publication bias included people not doing research or . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. K. Tong and S. A. Glantz Tobacco Industry Efforts Undermining Evidence Linking Secondhand Smoke With Cardiovascular Disease Circulation, October 16, 2007; 116(16): 1845 - 1854. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. E. Mullick, J. M. McDonald, G. Melkonian, P. Talbot, K. E. Pinkerton, and J. C. Rutledge Reactive carbonyls from tobacco smoke increase arterial endothelial layer injury Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, August 1, 2002; 283(2): H591 - H597. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Narkiewicz, P. J.H. van de Borne, M. Hausberg, R. L. Cooley, M. D. Winniford, D. E. Davison, and V. K. Somers Cigarette Smoking Increases Sympathetic Outflow in Humans Circulation, August 11, 1998; 98(6): 528 - 534. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. A. Glantz, B. J. Fox, and J. M. Lightwood Tobacco Litigation: Issues for Public Health and Public Policy JAMA, March 5, 1997; 277(9): 751 - 753. [Abstract] [PDF]