Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8643789

Does smoking really kill anybody?

H J Eysenck
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Statements that so many people are killed by smoking use the term "kill" in a very unusual manner which is easily misunderstood by people not expert in epidemiology. In addition, the usual calculations leave out of account the fact that smoking interacts synergistically with other risk factors, so that it is a combination of risk factors rather than any specific one that is likely to have a causal influence on mortality. Strictly speaking it is quite inappropriate to state that smoking kills anybody, if we use the term "kill" in a meaningful fashion.

Explore related subjects

CausalityCause of DeathData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleRisk FactorsSmokingStress, PsychologicalJournal ArticleRetracted Publication

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H J Eysenck. 1995. Does smoking really kill anybody?. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3f.1243

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

The causal relationship between multiple cardiovascular diseases and glioblastoma: A Mendelian randomization study.

Observational studies suggest an association between glioblastoma (GBM) and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), but a causal relationship remains unestablished. This study aimed to investigate the causal link between multiple CVDs and GBM risk. The inverse variance weighted method indicated that all 18 CVDs had significant causal associations with GBM (P&#x2005;<&#x2005;.05). Genetically predicted CVDs were uniformly associated with a lower risk of GBM (odds ratio&#x2005;<&#x2005;1), identifying them as potential protective factors. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the absence of significant heterogeneity or horizontal pleiotropy, and the MR-Steiger test validated the correct causal direction. This Mendelian randomization (MR) study provides evidence that a range of CVDs are causally associated with a decreased risk of developing GBM. These findings suggest shared biological pathways and offer new insights for understanding GBM etiology. We conducted a 2-sample MR analysis using publicly available genome-wide association study data. GBM was the outcome, and 18 cardiovascular-related traits (including coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and venous thromboembolism) were exposures. Instrumental variables were single-nucleotide polymorphisms significantly associated with exposures (P&#x2005;<&#x2005;5&#x2005;&#xd7;&#x2005;10-8). The primary analysis used the inverse variance weighted method, supplemented with MR-Egger, weighted median, and weighted mode methods. Sensitivity analyses, including Cochran Q test, MR-Egger intercept test, leave-one-out analysis, and MR-Steiger directionality test, were performed to ensure robustness.

Causality↗
PubMed2000

Ventricular tachyarrhythmias following coronary surgery: predisposing factors.

The perioperative factors potentially associated with post-coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VT) onset have not been deeply investigated. Monomorphic or polymorphic ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation represent the most dreadful arrhythmic events that can complicate the postoperative course of CABG. As a consequence, the aim of our paper was to identify which perioperative variables might predict post-CABG VT occurrence. One hundred and fifty-two consecutive patients who underwent CABG surgery at our Institution were included in the study. Post-CABG VT occurred in 13 out of 152 patients (8.5%, six cases of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia and seven cases of ventricular fibrillation). At univariate analysis, VT patients were significantly younger (54.8+/-6.6 vs. 60.1+/-8.8, P=0.038), exhibited a more severe coronary artery disease (CAD) (number of diseased vessels 2.92+/-0.3 vs. 2.45+/-0.7, P=0.023, and percentage of patients with three-vessel CAD 91.7% vs. 57.3%, P=0.043) and received a greater number of CABGs than those remaining in sinus rhythm (SR) (percentage of patients receiving three or more CABGs 76. 9% vs. 38.8%, P1000 76.9% vs. 38%, Pnormal range 72.7% vs. 30.7%, P=0.014), electrolyte derangement (84.6% vs. 45.6%, P=0.017) and a severe haemodynamic impairment (need for IABP 23% vs. 2.9%, P1000, postoperative electrolyte imbalance, the need for three or more CABGs and of IABP all were independent correlates for VT. In conclusion, post-CABG VT seem to be related to the preexistence of a severe underlying coronary artery disease along with perioperative triggering factors such as acute ischemia, electrolytic disorders and a sudden haemodynamic impairment.

Causality↗