effects of smoking thesis statement

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 10 October 2022

Health effects associated with smoking: a Burden of Proof study

• Xiaochen Dai   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0289-7814 1 , 2 ,
• Gabriela F. Gil 1 ,
• Marissa B. Reitsma 1 ,
• Noah S. Ahmad 1 ,
• Jason A. Anderson 1 ,
• Catherine Bisignano 1 ,
• Sinclair Carr 1 ,
• Rachel Feldman 1 ,
• Simon I. Hay   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0611-7272 1 , 2 ,
• Jiawei He 1 , 2 ,
• Vincent Iannucci 1 ,
• Hilary R. Lawlor 1 ,
• Matthew J. Malloy 1 ,
• Laurie B. Marczak 1 ,
• Susan A. McLaughlin 1 ,
• Larissa Morikawa   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9749-8033 1 ,
• Erin C. Mullany 1 ,
• Sneha I. Nicholson 1 ,
• Erin M. O’Connell 1 ,
• Chukwuma Okereke 1 ,
• Reed J. D. Sorensen 1 ,
• Joanna Whisnant 1 ,
• Aleksandr Y. Aravkin 1 , 3 ,
• Peng Zheng 1 , 2 ,
• Christopher J. L. Murray   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4930-9450 1 , 2 &
• Emmanuela Gakidou   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8992-591X 1 , 2  

Nature Medicine volume  28 ,  pages 2045–2055 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

23k Accesses

36 Citations

154 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Risk factors

Matters Arising to this article was published on 14 April 2023

As a leading behavioral risk factor for numerous health outcomes, smoking is a major ongoing public health challenge. Although evidence on the health effects of smoking has been widely reported, few attempts have evaluated the dose–response relationship between smoking and a diverse range of health outcomes systematically and comprehensively. In the present study, we re-estimated the dose–response relationships between current smoking and 36 health outcomes by conducting systematic reviews up to 31 May 2022, employing a meta-analytic method that incorporates between-study heterogeneity into estimates of uncertainty. Among the 36 selected outcomes, 8 had strong-to-very-strong evidence of an association with smoking, 21 had weak-to-moderate evidence of association and 7 had no evidence of association. By overcoming many of the limitations of traditional meta-analyses, our approach provides comprehensive, up-to-date and easy-to-use estimates of the evidence on the health effects of smoking. These estimates provide important information for tobacco control advocates, policy makers, researchers, physicians, smokers and the public.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Burden of Proof studies: assessing the evidence of risk

Peng Zheng, Ashkan Afshin, … Christopher J. L. Murray

Health effects associated with exposure to secondhand smoke: a Burden of Proof study

Luisa S. Flor, Jason A. Anderson, … Emmanuela Gakidou

Health effects associated with chewing tobacco: a Burden of Proof study

Gabriela F. Gil, Jason A. Anderson, … Emmanuela Gakidou

Among both the public and the health experts, smoking is recognized as a major behavioral risk factor with a leading attributable health burden worldwide. The health risks of smoking were clearly outlined in a canonical study of disease rates (including lung cancer) and smoking habits in British doctors in 1950 and have been further elaborated in detail over the following seven decades 1 , 2 . In 2005, evidence of the health consequences of smoking galvanized the adoption of the first World Health Organization (WHO) treaty, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, in an attempt to drive reductions in global tobacco use and second-hand smoke exposure 3 . However, as of 2020, an estimated 1.18 billion individuals globally were current smokers and 7 million deaths and 177 million disability-adjusted life-years were attributed to smoking, reflecting a persistent public health challenge 4 . Quantifying the relationship between smoking and various important health outcomes—in particular, highlighting any significant dose–response relationships—is crucial to understanding the attributable health risk experienced by these individuals and informing responsive public policy.

Existing literature on the relationship between smoking and specific health outcomes is prolific, including meta-analyses, cohort studies and case–control studies analyzing the risk of outcomes such as lung cancer 5 , 6 , 7 , chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 8 , 9 , 10 and ischemic heart disease 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 due to smoking. There are few if any attempts, however, to systematically and comprehensively evaluate the landscape of evidence on smoking risk across a diverse range of health outcomes, with most current research focusing on risk or attributable burden of smoking for a specific condition 7 , 15 , thereby missing the opportunity to provide a comprehensive picture of the health risk experienced by smokers. Furthermore, although evidence surrounding specific health outcomes, such as lung cancer, has generated widespread consensus, findings about the attributable risk of other outcomes are much more heterogeneous and inconclusive 16 , 17 , 18 . These studies also vary in their risk definitions, with many comparing dichotomous exposure measures of ever smokers versus nonsmokers 19 , 20 . Others examine the distinct risks of current smokers and former smokers compared with never smokers 21 , 22 , 23 . Among the studies that do analyze dose–response relationships, there is large variation in the units and dose categories used in reporting their findings (for example, the use of pack-years or cigarettes per day) 24 , 25 , which complicates the comparability and consolidation of evidence. This, in turn, can obscure data that could inform personal health choices, public health practices and policy measures. Guidance on the health risks of smoking, such as the Surgeon General’s Reports on smoking 26 , 27 , is often based on experts’ evaluation of heterogenous evidence, which, although extremely useful and well suited to carefully consider nuances in the evidence, is fundamentally subjective.

The present study, as part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Risk Factors, and Injuries Study (GBD) 2020, re-estimated the continuous dose–response relationships (the mean risk functions and associated uncertainty estimates) between current smoking and 36 health outcomes (Supplementary Table 1 ) by identifying input studies using a systematic review approach and employing a meta-analytic method 28 . The 36 health outcomes that were selected based on existing evidence of a relationship included 16 cancers (lung cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, leukemia, liver cancer, laryngeal cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, lip and oral cavity cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, other pharynx cancer (excluding nasopharynx cancer), pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer and prostate cancer), 5 cardiovascular diseases (CVDs: ischemic heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation and flutter, aortic aneurysm and peripheral artery disease) and 15 other diseases (COPD, lower respiratory tract infections, tuberculosis, asthma, type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, cataracts, gallbladder diseases, low back pain, peptic ulcer disease, rheumatoid arthritis, macular degeneration and fractures). Definitions of the outcomes are described in Supplementary Table 1 . We conducted a separate systematic review for each risk–outcome pair with the exception of cancers, which were done together in a single systematic review. This approach allowed us to systematically identify all relevant studies indexed in PubMed up to 31 May 2022, and we extracted relevant data on risk of smoking, including study characteristics, following a pre-specified template (Supplementary Table 2 ). The meta-analytic tool overcomes many of the limitations of traditional meta-analyses by incorporating between-study heterogeneity into the uncertainty of risk estimates, accounting for small numbers of studies, relaxing the assumption of log(linearity) applied to the risk functions, handling differences in exposure ranges between comparison groups, and systematically testing and adjusting for bias due to study designs and characteristics. We then estimated the burden-of-proof risk function (BPRF) for each risk–outcome pair, as proposed by Zheng et al. 29 ; the BPRF is a conservative risk function defined as the 5th quantile curve (for harmful risks) that reflects the smallest harmful effect at each level of exposure consistent with the available evidence. Given all available data for each outcome, the risk of smoking is at least as harmful as the BPRF indicates.

We used the BPRF for each risk–outcome pair to calculate risk–outcome scores (ROSs) and categorize the strength of evidence for the association between smoking and each health outcome using a star rating from 1 to 5. The interpretation of the star ratings is as follows: 1 star (*) indicates no evidence of association; 2 stars (**) correspond to a 0–15% increase in risk across average range of exposures for harmful risks; 3 stars (***) represent a 15–50% increase in risk; 4 stars (****) refer to >50–85% increase in risk; and 5 stars (*****) equal >85% increase in risk. The thresholds for each star rating were developed in consultation with collaborators and other stakeholders.

The increasing disease burden attributable to current smoking, particularly in low- and middle-income countries 4 , demonstrates the relevance of the present study, which quantifies the strength of the evidence using an objective, quantitative, comprehensive and comparative framework. Findings from the present study can be used to support policy makers in making informed smoking recommendations and regulations focusing on the associations for which the evidence is strongest (that is, the 4- and 5-star associations). However, associations with a lower star rating cannot be ignored, especially when the outcome has high prevalence or severity. A summary of the main findings, limitations and policy implications of the study is presented in Table 1 .

We evaluated the mean risk functions and the BPRFs for 36 health outcomes that are associated with current smoking 30 (Table 2 ). Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines 31 for each of our systematic reviews, we identified studies reporting relative risk (RR) of incidence or mortality from each of the 36 selected outcomes for smokers compared with nonsmokers. We reviewed 21,108 records, which were identified to have been published between 1 May 2018 and 31 May 2022; this represents the most recent time period since the last systematic review of the available evidence for the GBD at the time of publication. The meta-analyses reported in the present study for each of the 36 health outcomes are based on evidence from a total of 793 studies published between 1970 and 2022 (Extended Data Fig. 1 – 5 and Supplementary Information 1.5 show the PRISMA diagrams for each outcome). Only prospective cohort and case–control studies were included for estimating dose–response risk curves, but cross-sectional studies were also included for estimating the age pattern of smoking risk on cardiovascular and circulatory disease (CVD) outcomes. Details on each, including the study’s design, data sources, number of participants, length of follow-up, confounders adjusted for in the input data and bias covariates included in the dose–response risk model, can be found in Supplementary Information 2 and 3 . The theoretical minimum risk exposure level used for current smoking was never smoking or zero 30 .

Five-star associations

When the most conservative interpretation of the evidence, that is, the BPRF, suggests that the average exposure (15th–85th percentiles of exposure) of smoking increases the risk of a health outcome by >85% (that is, ROS > 0.62), smoking and that outcome are categorized as a 5-star pair. Among the 36 outcomes, there are 5 that have a 5-star association with current smoking: laryngeal cancer (375% increase in risk based on the BPRF, 1.56 ROS), aortic aneurysm (150%, 0.92), peripheral artery disease (137%, 0.86), lung cancer (107%, 0.73) and other pharynx cancer (excluding nasopharynx cancer) (92%, 0.65).

Results for all 5-star risk–outcome pairs are available in Table 2 and Supplementary Information 4.1 . In the present study, we provide detailed results for one example 5-star association: current smoking and lung cancer. We extracted 371 observations from 25 prospective cohort studies and 53 case–control studies across 25 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 5 , 6 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 . Exposure ranged from 1 pack-year to >112 pack-years, with the 85th percentile of exposure being 50.88 pack-years (Fig. 1a ).

a , The log(RR) function. b , RR function. c , A modified funnel plot showing the residuals (relative to 0) on the x axis and the estimated s.d. that includes reported s.d. and between-study heterogeneity on the y axis.

We found a very strong and significant harmful relationship between pack-years of current smoking and the RR of lung cancer (Fig. 1b ). The mean RR of lung cancer at 20 pack-years of smoking was 5.11 (95% uncertainty interval (UI) inclusive of between-study heterogeneity = 1.84–14.99). At 50.88 pack-years (85th percentile of exposure), the mean RR of lung cancer was 13.42 (2.63–74.59). See Table 2 for mean RRs at other exposure levels. The BPRF, which represents the most conservative interpretation of the evidence (Fig. 1a ), suggests that smoking in the 15th–85th percentiles of exposure increases the risk of lung cancer by an average of 107%, yielding an ROS of 0.73.

The relationship between pack-years of current smoking and RR of lung cancer is nonlinear, with diminishing impact of further pack-years of smoking, particularly for middle-to-high exposure levels (Fig. 1b ). To reduce the effect of bias, we adjusted observations that did not account for more than five confounders, including age and sex, because they were the significant bias covariates identified by the bias covariate selection algorithm 29 (Supplementary Table 7 ). The reported RRs across studies were very heterogeneous. Our meta-analytic method, which accounts for the reported uncertainty in both the data and between-study heterogeneity, fit the data and covered the estimated residuals well (Fig. 1c ). After trimming 10% of outliers, we still detected publication bias in the results for lung cancer. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for observed RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining 5-star pairs.

Four-star associations

When the BPRF suggests that the average exposure of smoking increases the risk of a health outcome by 50–85% (that is, ROS > 0.41–0.62), smoking is categorized as having a 4-star association with that outcome. We identified three outcomes with a 4-star association with smoking: COPD (72% increase in risk based on the BPRF, 0.54 ROS), lower respiratory tract infection (54%, 0.43) and pancreatic cancer (52%, 0.42).

In the present study, we provide detailed results for one example 4-star association: current smoking and COPD. We extracted 51 observations from 11 prospective cohort studies and 4 case–control studies across 36 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 78 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 . Exposure ranged from 1 pack-year to 100 pack-years, with the 85th percentile of exposure in the exposed group being 49.75 pack-years.

We found a strong and significant harmful relationship between pack-years of current smoking and RR of COPD (Fig. 2b ). The mean RR of COPD at 20 pack-years was 3.17 (1.60–6.55; Table 2 reports RRs at other exposure levels). At the 85th percentile of exposure, the mean RR of COPD was 6.01 (2.08–18.58). The BPRF suggests that average smoking exposure raises the risk of COPD by an average of 72%, yielding an ROS of 0.54. The results for the other health outcomes that have an association with smoking rated as 4 stars are shown in Table 2 and Supplementary Information 4.2 .

a , The log(RR) function. b , RR function. c , A modified funnel plot showing the residuals (relative to 0) on th e x axis and the estimated s.d. that includes the reported s.d. and between-study heterogeneity on the y axis.

The relationship between smoking and COPD is nonlinear, with diminishing impact of further pack-years of current smoking on risk of COPD, particularly for middle-to-high exposure levels (Fig. 2a ). To reduce the effect of bias, we adjusted observations that did not account for age and sex and/or were generated for individuals aged >65 years 116 , because they were the two significant bias covariates identified by the bias covariate selection algorithm (Supplementary Table 7 ). There was large heterogeneity in the reported RRs across studies, and our meta-analytic method fit the data and covered the estimated residuals well (Fig. 2b ). Although we trimmed 10% of outliers, publication bias was still detected in the results for COPD. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for reported RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining health outcomes that have a 4-star association with smoking.

Three-star associations

When the BPRF suggests that the average exposure of smoking increases the risk of a health outcome by 15–50% (or, when protective, decreases the risk of an outcome by 13–34%; that is, ROS >0.14–0.41), the association between smoking and that outcome is categorized as having a 3-star rating. We identified 15 outcomes with a 3-star association: bladder cancer (40% increase in risk, 0.34 ROS); tuberculosis (31%, 0.27); esophageal cancer (29%, 0.26); cervical cancer, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis (each 23–24%, 0.21); lower back pain (22%, 0.20); ischemic heart disease (20%, 0.19); peptic ulcer and macular degeneration (each 19–20%, 0.18); Parkinson's disease (protective risk, 15% decrease in risk, 0.16); and stomach cancer, stroke, type 2 diabetes and cataracts (each 15–17%, 0.14–0.16).

We present the findings on smoking and type 2 diabetes as an example of a 3-star risk association. We extracted 102 observations from 24 prospective cohort studies and 4 case–control studies across 15 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 . The exposure ranged from 1 cigarette to 60 cigarettes smoked per day, with the 85th percentile of exposure in the exposed group being 26.25 cigarettes smoked per day.

We found a moderate and significant harmful relationship between cigarettes smoked per day and the RR of type 2 diabetes (Fig. 3b ). The mean RR of type 2 diabetes at 20 cigarettes smoked per day was 1.49 (1.18–1.90; see Table 2 for other exposure levels). At the 85th percentile of exposure, the mean RR of type 2 diabetes was 1.54 (1.20–2.01). The BPRF suggests that average smoking exposure raises the risk of type 2 diabetes by an average of 16%, yielding an ROS of 0.15. See Table 2 and Supplementary Information 4.3 for results for the additional health outcomes with an association with smoking rated as 3 stars.

a , The log(RR) function. b , RR function. c , A modified funnel plot showing the residuals (relative to 0) on the x axis and the estimated s.d. that includes the reported s.d. and between-study heterogeneity on the y axis.

The relationship between smoking and type 2 diabetes is nonlinear, particularly for high exposure levels where the mean risk curve becomes flat (Fig. 3a ). We adjusted observations that were generated in subpopulations, because it was the only significant bias covariate identified by the bias covariate selection algorithm (Supplementary Table 7 ). There was moderate heterogeneity in the observed RR data across studies and our meta-analytic method fit the data and covered the estimated residuals extremely well (Fig. 3b,c ). After trimming 10% of outliers, we still detected publication bias in the results for type 2 diabetes. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for observed RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining 3-star pairs.

Two-star associations

When the BPRF suggests that the average exposure of smoking increases the risk of an outcome by 0–15% (that is, ROS 0.0–0.14), the association between smoking and that outcome is categorized as a 2-star rating. We identified six 2-star outcomes: nasopharyngeal cancer (14% increase in risk, 0.13 ROS); Alzheimer’s and other dementia (10%, 0.09); gallbladder diseases and atrial fibrillation and flutter (each 6%, 0.06); lip and oral cavity cancer (5%, 0.05); and breast cancer (4%, 0.04).

We present the findings on smoking and breast cancer as an example of a 2-star association. We extracted 93 observations from 14 prospective cohort studies and 9 case–control studies across 14 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 84 , 87 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 . The exposure ranged from 1 cigarette to >76 cigarettes smoked per day, with the 85th percentile of exposure in the exposed group being 34.10 cigarettes smoked per day.

We found a weak but significant relationship between pack-years of current smoking and RR of breast cancer (Extended Data Fig. 6 ). The mean RR of breast cancer at 20 pack-years was 1.17 (1.04–1.31; Table 2 reports other exposure levels). The BPRF suggests that average smoking exposure raises the risk of breast cancer by an average of 4%, yielding an ROS of 0.04. See Table 2 and Supplementary Information 4.4 for results on the additional health outcomes for which the association with smoking has been categorized as 2 stars.

The relationship between smoking and breast cancer is nonlinear, particularly for high exposure levels where the mean risk curve becomes flat (Extended Data Fig. 6a ). To reduce the effect of bias, we adjusted observations that were generated in subpopulations, because it was the only significant bias covariate identified by the bias covariate selection algorithm (Supplementary Table 7 ). There was heterogeneity in the reported RRs across studies, but our meta-analytic method fit the data and covered the estimated residuals (Extended Data Fig. 6b ). After trimming 10% of outliers, we did not detect publication bias in the results for breast cancer. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for observed RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining 2-star pairs.

One-star associations

When average exposure to smoking does not significantly increase (or decrease) the risk of an outcome, once between-study heterogeneity and other sources of uncertainty are accounted for (that is, ROS < 0), the association between smoking and that outcome is categorized as 1 star, indicating that there is not sufficient evidence for the effect of smoking on the outcome to reject the null (that is, there may be no association). There were seven outcomes with an association with smoking that rated as 1 star: colorectal and kidney cancer (each –0.01 ROS); leukemia (−0.04); fractures (−0.05); prostate cancer (−0.06); liver cancer (−0.32); and asthma (−0.64).

We use smoking and prostate cancer as examples of a 1-star association. We extracted 78 observations from 21 prospective cohort studies and 1 nested case–control study across 15 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 157 , 160 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 . The exposure among the exposed group ranged from 1 cigarette to 90 cigarettes smoked per day, with the 85th percentile of exposure in the exposed group being 29.73 cigarettes smoked per day.

Based on our conservative interpretation of the data, we did not find a significant relationship between cigarettes smoked per day and the RR of prostate cancer (Fig. 4B ). The exposure-averaged BPRF for prostate cancer was 0.94, which was opposite null from the full range of mean RRs, such as 1.16 (0.89–1.53) at 20 cigarettes smoked per day. The corresponding ROS was −0.06, which is consistent with no evidence of an association between smoking and increased risk of prostate cancer. See Table 2 and Supplementary Information 4.5 for results for the additional outcomes that have a 1-star association with smoking.

The relationship between smoking and prostate cancer is nonlinear, particularly for middle-to-high exposure levels where the mean risk curve becomes flat (Fig. 4a ). We did not adjust for any bias covariate because no significant bias covariates were selected by the algorithm (Supplementary Table 7 ). The RRs reported across studies were very heterogeneous, but our meta-analytic method fit the data and covered the estimated residuals well (Fig. 4b,c ). The ROS associated with the BPRF is −0.05, suggesting that the most conservative interpretation of all evidence, after accounting for between-study heterogeneity, indicates an inconclusive relationship between smoking exposure and the risk of prostate cancer. After trimming 10% of outliers, we still detected publication bias in the results for prostate cancer, which warrants further studies using sample populations. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for observed RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining 1-star pairs.

Age-specific dose–response risk for CVD outcomes

We produced age-specific dose–response risk curves for the five selected CVD outcomes ( Methods ). The ROS associated with each smoking–CVD pair was calculated based on the reference risk curve estimated using all risk data regardless of age information. Estimation of the BPRF, calculation of the associated ROS and star rating of the smoking–CVD pairs follow the same rules as the other non-CVD smoking–outcome pairs (Table 1 and Supplementary Figs. 2 – 4 ). Once we had estimated the reference dose–response risk curve for each CVD outcome, we determined the age group of the reference risk curve. The reference age group is 55–59 years for all CVD outcomes, except for peripheral artery disease, the reference age group for which is 60–64 years. We then estimated the age pattern of smoking on all CVD outcomes (Supplementary Fig. 2 ) and calculated age attenuation factors of the risk for each age group by comparing the risk of each age group with that of the reference age group, using the estimated age pattern (Supplementary Fig. 3 ). Last, we applied the draws of age attenuation factors of each age group to the dose–response risk curve for the reference age group to produce the age group-specific dose–response risk curves for each CVD outcome (Supplementary Fig. 4 ).

Using our burden-of-proof meta-analytic methods, we re-estimated the dose–response risk of smoking on 36 health outcomes that had previously been demonstrated to be associated with smoking 30 , 186 . Using these methods, which account for both the reported uncertainty of the data and the between-study heterogeneity, we found that 29 of the 36 smoking–outcome pairs are supported by evidence that suggests a significant dose–response relationship between smoking and the given outcome (28 with a harmful association and 1 with a protective association). Conversely, after accounting for between-study heterogeneity, the available evidence of smoking risk on seven outcomes (that is, colon and rectum cancer, kidney cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, fractures, liver cancer and asthma) was insufficient to reject the null or draw definitive conclusions on their relationship to smoking. Among the 29 outcomes that have evidence supporting a significant relationship to smoking, 8 had strong-to-very-strong evidence of a relationship, meaning that, given all the available data on smoking risk, we estimate that average exposure to smoking increases the risk of those outcomes by >50% (4- and 5-star outcomes). The currently available evidence for the remaining 21 outcomes with a significant association with current smoking was weak to moderate, indicating that smoking increases the risk of those outcomes by at least >0–50% (2- and 3-star associations).

Even under our conservative interpretation of the data, smoking is irrefutably harmful to human health, with the greatest increases in risk occurring for laryngeal cancer, aortic aneurysm, peripheral artery disease, lung cancer and other pharynx cancer (excluding nasopharynx cancer), which collectively represent large causes of death and ill-health. The magnitude of and evidence for the associations between smoking and its leading health outcomes are among the highest currently analyzed in the burden-of-proof framework 29 . The star ratings assigned to each smoking–outcome pair offer policy makers a way of categorizing and comparing the evidence for a relationship between smoking and its potential health outcomes ( https://vizhub.healthdata.org/burden-of-proof ). We found that, for seven outcomes in our analysis, there was insufficient or inconsistent evidence to demonstrate a significant association with smoking. This is a key finding because it demonstrates the need for more high-quality data for these particular outcomes; availability of more data should improve the strength of evidence for whether or not there is an association between smoking and these health outcomes.

Our systematic review approach and meta-analytic methods have numerous benefits over existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the same topic that use traditional random effects models. First, our approach relaxes the log(linear) assumption, using a spline ensemble to estimate the risk 29 . Second, our approach allows variable reference groups and exposure ranges, allowing for more accurate estimates regardless of whether or not the underlying relative risk is log(linear). Furthermore, it can detect outliers in the data automatically. Finally, it quantifies uncertainty due to between-study heterogeneity while accounting for small numbers of studies, minimizing the risk that conclusions will be drawn based on spurious findings.

We believe that the results for the association between smoking and each of the 36 health outcomes generated by the present study, including the mean risk function, BPRF, ROS, average excess risk and star rating, could be useful to a range of stakeholders. Policy makers can formulate their decisions on smoking control priorities and resource allocation based on the magnitude of the effect and the consistency of the evidence relating smoking to each of the 36 outcomes, as represented by the ROS and star rating for each smoking–outcome association 187 . Physicians and public health practitioners can use the estimates of average increased risk and the star rating to educate patients and the general public about the risk of smoking and to promote smoking cessation 188 . Researchers can use the estimated mean risk function or BPRF to obtain the risk of an outcome at a given smoking exposure level, as well as uncertainty surrounding that estimate of risk. The results can also be used in the estimation of risk-attributable burden, that is, the deaths and disability-adjusted life-years due to each outcome that are attributable to smoking 30 , 186 . For the general public, these results could help them to better understand the risk of smoking and manage their health 189 .

Although our meta-analysis was comprehensive and carefully conducted, there are limitations to acknowledge. First, the bias covariates used, although carefully extracted and evaluated, were based on observable study characteristics and thus may not fully capture unobserved characteristics such as study quality or context, which might be major sources of bias. Second, if multiple risk estimates with different adjustment levels were reported in a given study, we included only the fully adjusted risk estimate and modeled the adjustment level according to the number of covariates adjusted for (rather than which covariates were adjusted for) and whether a standard adjustment for age and sex had been applied. This approach limited our ability to make full use of all available risk estimates in the literature. Third, although we evaluated the potential for publication bias in the data, we did not test for other forms of bias such as when studies are more consistent with each other than expected by chance 29 . Fourth, our analysis assumes that the relationships between smoking and health outcomes are similar across geographical regions and over time. We do not have sufficient evidence to quantify how the relationships may have evolved over time because the composition of smoking products has also changed over time. Perhaps some of the heterogeneity of the effect sizes in published studies reflects this; however, this cannot be discerned with the currently available information.

In the future, we plan to include crude and partially adjusted risk estimates in our analyses to fully incorporate all available risk estimates, to model the adjusted covariates in a more comprehensive way by mapping the adjusted covariates across all studies comprehensively and systematically, and to develop methods to evaluate additional forms of potential bias. We plan to update our results on a regular basis to provide timely and up-to-date evidence to stakeholders.

To conclude, we have re-estimated the dose–response risk of smoking on 36 health outcomes while synthesizing all the available evidence up to 31 May 2022. We found that, even after factoring in the heterogeneity between studies and other sources of uncertainty, smoking has a strong-to-very-strong association with a range of health outcomes and confirmed that smoking is irrefutably highly harmful to human health. We found that, due to small numbers of studies, inconsistency in the data, small effect sizes or a combination of these reasons, seven outcomes for which some previous research had found an association with smoking did not—under our meta-analytic framework and conservative approach to interpreting the data—have evidence of an association. Our estimates of the evidence for risk of smoking on 36 selected health outcomes have the potential to inform the many stakeholders of smoking control, including policy makers, researchers, public health professionals, physicians, smokers and the general public.

For the present study, we used a meta-analytic tool, MR-BRT (metaregression—Bayesian, regularized, trimmed), to estimate the dose–response risk curves of the risk of a health outcome across the range of current smoking levels along with uncertainty estimates 28 . Compared with traditional meta-analysis using linear mixed effect models, MR-BRT relaxes the assumption of a log(linear) relationship between exposure and risk, incorporates between-study heterogeneity into the uncertainty of risk estimates, handles estimates reported across different exposure categories, automatically identifies and trims outliers, and systematically tests and adjusts for bias due to study designs and characteristics. The meta-analytic methods employed by the present study followed the six main steps proposed by Zheng et al. 28 , 29 , namely: (1) enacting a systematic review approach and data extraction following a pre-specified and standardized protocol; (2) estimating the shape of the relationship between exposure and RR; (3) evaluating and adjusting for systematic bias as a function of study characteristics and risk estimation; (4) quantifying between-study heterogeneity while adjusting for within-study correlation and the number of studies; (5) evaluating potential publication or reporting biases; and (6) estimating the mean risk function and the BPRF, calculating the ROS and categorizing smoking–outcome pairs using a star-rating scheme from 1 to 5.

The estimates for our primary indicators of this work—mean RRs across a range of exposures, BRPFs, ROSs and star ratings for each risk–outcome pair—are not specific to or disaggregated by specific populations. We did not estimate RRs separately for different locations, sexes (although the RR of prostate cancer was estimated only for males and of cervical and breast cancer only for females) or age groups (although this analysis was applied to disease endpoints in adults aged ≥30 years only and, as detailed below, age-specific estimates were produced for the five CVD outcomes).

The present study complies with the PRISMA guidelines 190 (Supplementary Tables 9 and 10 and Supplementary Information 1.5 ) and Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) recommendations 191 (Supplementary Table 11 ). The study was approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board (study no. 9060). The systematic review approach was not registered.

Selecting health outcomes

In the present study, current smoking is defined as the current use of any smoked tobacco product on a daily or occasional basis. Health outcomes were initially selected using the World Cancer Research Fund criteria for convincing or probable evidence as described in Murray et al. 186 . The 36 health outcomes that were selected based on existing evidence of a relationship included 16 cancers (lung cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, leukemia, liver cancer, laryngeal cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, lip and oral cavity cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, other pharynx cancer (excluding nasopharynx cancer), pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer and prostate cancer), 5 CVDs (ischemic heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation and flutter, aortic aneurysm and peripheral artery disease) and 15 other diseases (COPD, lower respiratory tract infections, tuberculosis, asthma, type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, cataracts, gallbladder diseases, low back pain, peptic ulcer disease, rheumatoid arthritis, macular degeneration and fracture). Definitions of the outcomes are described in Supplementary Table 1 .

Step 1: systematic review approach to literature search and data extraction

Informed by the systematic review approach we took for the GBD 2019 (ref. 30 ), for the present study we identified input studies in the literature using a systematic review approach for all 36 smoking–outcome pairs using updated search strings to identify all relevant studies indexed in PubMed up to 31 May 2022 and extracted data on smoking risk estimates. Briefly, the studies that were extracted represented several types of study design (for example, cohort and case–control studies), measured exposure in several different ways and varied in their choice of reference categories (where some compared current smokers with never smokers, whereas others compared current smokers with nonsmokers or former smokers). All these study characteristics were catalogued systematically and taken into consideration during the modeling part of the analysis.

In addition, for CVD outcomes, we also estimated the age pattern of risk associated with smoking. We applied a systematic review of literature approach for smoking risk for the five CVD outcomes. We developed a search string to search for studies reporting any association between binary smoking status (that is, current, former and ever smokers) and the five CVD outcomes from 1 January 1970 to 31 May 2022, and included only studies reporting age-specific risk (RR, odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR)) of smoking status. The inclusion criteria and results of the systematic review approach are reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines 31 . Details for each outcome on the search string used in the systematic review approach, refined inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction template and PRISMA diagram are given in Supplementary Information 1 . Title and/or abstract screening, full text screening and data extraction were conducted by 14 members of the research team and extracted data underwent manual quality assurance by the research team to verify accuracy.

Selecting exposure categories

Cumulative exposure in pack-years was the measure of exposure used for COPD and all cancer outcomes except for prostate cancer, to reflect the risk of both duration and intensity of current smoking on these outcomes. For prostate cancer, CVDs and all the other outcomes except for fractures, we used cigarette-equivalents smoked per day as the exposure for current smoking, because smoking intensity is generally thought to be more important than duration for these outcomes. For fractures, we used binary exposure, because there were few studies examining intensity or duration of smoking on fractures. The smoking–outcome pairs and the corresponding exposures are summarized in Supplementary Table 4 and are congruent with the GBD 2019 (refs. 30 , 186 ).

Steps 2–5: modeling dose–response RR of smoking on the selected health outcomes

Of the six steps proposed by Zheng et al. 29 , steps 2–5 cover the process of modeling dose–response risk curves. In step 2, we estimated the shape (or the ‘signal’) of the dose–response risk curves, integrating over different exposure ranges. To relax the log(linear) assumption usually applied to continuous dose–response risk and make the estimates robust to the placement of spline knots, we used an ensemble spline approach to fit the functional form of the dose–response relationship. The final ensemble model was a weighted combination of 50 models with random knot placement, with the weight of each model proportional to measures of model fit and total variation. To avoid the influence of extreme data and reduce publication bias, we trimmed 10% of data for each outcome as outliers. We also applied a monotonicity constraint to ensure that the mean risk curves were nondecreasing (or nonincreasing in the case of Parkinson’s disease).

In step 3, following the GRADE approach 192 , 193 , we quantified risk of bias across six domains, namely, representativeness of the study population, exposure, outcome, reverse causation, control for confounding and selection bias. Details about the bias covariates are provided in Supplementary Table 4 . We systematically tested for the effect of bias covariates using metaregression, selected significant bias covariates using the Lasso approach 194 , 195 and adjusted for the selected bias covariates in the final risk curve.

In step 4, we quantified between-study heterogeneity accounting for within-study correlation, uncertainty of the heterogeneity, as well as small number of studies. Specifically, we used a random intercept in the mixed-effects model to account for the within-study correlation and used a study-specific random slope with respect to the ‘signal’ to capture between-study heterogeneity. As between-study heterogeneity can be underestimated or even zero when the number of studies is small 196 , 197 , we used Fisher’s information matrix to estimate the uncertainty of the heterogeneity 198 and incorporated that uncertainty into the final results.

In step 5, in addition to generating funnel plots and visually inspecting for asymmetry (Figs. 1c , 2c , 3c and 4c and Extended Data Fig. 6c ) to identify potential publication bias, we also statistically tested for potential publication or reporting bias using Egger’s regression 199 . We flagged potential publication bias in the data but did not correct for it, which is in line with the general literature 10 , 200 , 201 . Full details about the modeling process have been published elsewhere 29 and model specifications for each outcome are in Supplementary Table 6 .

Step 6: estimating the mean risk function and the BPRF

In the final step, step 6, the metaregression model inclusive of the selected bias covariates from step 3 (for example, the highest adjustment level) was used to predict the mean risk function and its 95% UI, which incorporated the uncertainty of the mean effect, between-study heterogeneity and the uncertainty in the heterogeneity estimate accounting for small numbers of studies. Specifically, 1,000 draws were created for each 0.1 level of doses from 0 pack-years to 100 pack-years or cigarette-equivalents smoked per day using the Bayesian metaregression model. The mean of the 1,000 draws was used to estimate the mean risk at each exposure level, and the 25th and 95th draws were used to estimate the 95% UIs for the mean risk at each exposure level.

The BPRF 29 is a conservative estimate of risk function consistent with the available evidence, correcting for both between-study heterogeneity and systemic biases related to study characteristics. The BPRF is defined as either the 5th (if harmful) or 95th (if protective) quantile curve closest to the line of log(RR) of 0, which defines the null (Figs. 1a , 2b , 3a and 4a ). The BPRF represents the smallest harmful (or protective) effect of smoking on the corresponding outcome at each level of exposure that is consistent with the available evidence. A BPRF opposite null from the mean risk function indicates that insufficient evidence is available to reject null, that is, that there may not be an association between risk and outcome. Likewise, the further the BPRF is from null on the same side of null as the mean risk function, the higher the magnitude and evidence for the relationship. The BPRF can be interpreted as indicating that, even accounting for between-study heterogeneity and its uncertainty, the log(RR) across the studied smoking range is at least as high as the BPRF (or at least as low as the BPRF for a protective risk).

To quantify the strength of the evidence, we calculated the ROS for each smoking–outcome association as the signed value of the log(BPRF) averaged between the 15th and 85th percentiles of observed exposure levels for each outcome. The ROS is a single summary of the effect of smoking on the outcome, with higher positive ROSs corresponding to stronger and more consistent evidence and a higher average effect size of smoking and a negative ROS, suggesting that, based on the available evidence, there is no significant effect of smoking on the outcome after accounting for between-study heterogeneity.

For ease of communication, we further classified each smoking–outcome association into a star rating from 1 to 5. Briefly, 1-star associations have an ROS <0, indicating that there is insufficient evidence to find a significant association between smoking and the selected outcome. We divided the positive ROSs into ranges 0.0–0.14 (2-star), >0.14–0.41 (3-star), >0.41–0.62 (4-star) and >0.62 (5-star). These categories correspond to excess risk ranges for harmful risks of 0–15%, >15–50%, >50–85% and >85%. For protective risks, the ranges of exposure-averaged decreases in risk by star rating are 0–13% (2 stars), >13–34% (3 stars), >34–46% (4 stars) and >46% (5 stars).

Among the 36 smoking–outcome pairs analyzed, smoking fracture was the only binary risk–outcome pair, which was due to limited data on the dose–response risk of smoking on fracture 202 . The estimation of binary risk was simplified because the RR was merely a comparison between current smokers and nonsmokers or never smokers. The concept of ROS for continuous risk can naturally extend to binary risk because the BPRF is still defined as the 5th percentile of the effect size accounting for data uncertainty and between-study heterogeneity. However, binary ROSs must be divided by 2 to make them comparable with continuous ROSs, which were calculated by averaging the risk over the range between the 15th and the 85th percentiles of observed exposure levels. Full details about estimating mean risk functions, BPRFs and ROSs for both continuous and binary risk–outcome pairs can be found elsewhere 29 .

Estimating the age-specific risk function for CVD outcomes

For non-CVD outcomes, we assumed that the risk function was the same for all ages and all sexes, except for breast, cervical and prostate cancer, which were assumed to apply only to females or males, respectively. As the risk of smoking on CVD outcomes is known to attenuate with increasing age 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 , we adopted a four-step approach for GBD 2020 to produce age-specific dose–response risk curves for CVD outcomes.

First, we estimated the reference dose–response risk of smoking for each CVD outcome using dose-specific RR data for each outcome regardless of the age group information. This step was identical to that implemented for the other non-CVD outcomes. Once we had generated the reference curve, we determined the age group associated with it by calculating the weighted mean age across all dose-specific RR data (weighted by the reciprocal of the s.e.m. of each datum). For example, if the weighted mean age of all dose-specific RR data was 56.5, we estimated the age group associated with the reference risk curve to be aged 55–59 years. For cohort studies, the age range associated with the RR estimate was calculated as a mean age at baseline plus the mean/median years of follow-up (if only the maximum years of follow-up were reported, we would halve this value and add it to the mean age at baseline). For case–control studies, the age range associated with the OR estimate was simply the reported mean age at baseline (if mean age was not reported, we used the midpoint of the age range instead).

In the third step, we extracted age group-specific RR data and relevant bias covariates from the studies identified in our systematic review approach of age-specific smoking risk on CVD outcomes, and used MR-BRT to model the age pattern of excess risk (that is, RR-1) of smoking on CVD outcomes with age group-specific excess RR data for all CVD outcomes. We modeled the age pattern of smoking risk on CVDs following the same steps we implemented for modeling dose–response risk curves. In the final model, we included a spline on age, random slope on age by study and the bias covariate encoding exposure definition (that is, current, former and ever smokers), which was picked by the variable selection algorithm 28 , 29 . When predicting the age pattern of the excess risk of smoking on CVD outcomes using the fitted model, we did not include between-study heterogeneity to reduce uncertainty in the prediction.

In the fourth step, we calculated the age attenuation factors of excess risk compared with the reference age group for each CVD outcome as the ratio of the estimated excess risk for each age group to the excess risk for the reference age group. We performed the calculation at the draw level to obtain 1,000 draws of the age attenuation factors for each age group. Once we had estimated the age attenuation factors, we carried out the last step, which consisted of adjusting the risk curve for the reference age group from step 1 using equation (1) to produce the age group-specific risk curves for each CVD outcome:

We implemented the age adjustment at the draw level so that the uncertainty of the age attenuation factors could be naturally incorporated into the final adjusted age-specific RR curves. A PRISMA diagram detailing the systematic review approach, a description of the studies included and the full details about the methods are in Supplementary Information 1.5 and 5.2 .

Estimating the theoretical minimum risk exposure level

The theoretical minimum risk exposure level for smoking was 0, that is, no individuals in the population are current or former smokers.

Model validation

The validity of the meta-analytic tool has been extensively evaluated by Zheng and colleagues using simulation experiments 28 , 29 . For the present study, we conducted two additional sensitivity analyses to examine how the shape of the risk curves was impacted by applying a monotonicity constraint and trimming 10% of data. We present the results of these sensitivity analyses in Supplementary Information 6 . In addition to the sensitivity analyses, the dose–response risk estimates were also validated by plotting the mean risk function along with its 95% UI against both the extracted dose-specific RR data from the studies included and our previous dose–response risk estimates from the GBD 2019 (ref. 30 ). The mean risk functions along with the 95% UIs were validated based on data fit and the level, shape and plausibility of the dose–response risk curves. All curves were validated by all authors and reviewed by an external expert panel, comprising professors with relevant experience from universities including Johns Hopkins University, Karolinska Institute and University of Barcelona; senior scientists working in relevant departments at the WHO and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and directors of nongovernmental organizations such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Statistical analysis

Analyses were carried out using R v.3.6.3, Python v.3.8 and Stata v.16.

Statistics and reproducibility

The study was a secondary analysis of existing data involving systematic reviews and meta-analyses. No statistical method was used to predetermine sample size. As the study did not involve primary data collection, randomization and blinding, data exclusions were not relevant to the present study, and, as such, no data were excluded and we performed no randomization or blinding. We have made our data and code available to foster reproducibility.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The findings from the present study are supported by data available in the published literature. Data sources and citations for each risk–outcome pair can be downloaded using the ‘download’ button on each risk curve page currently available at https://vizhub.healthdata.org/burden-of-proof . Study characteristics and citations for all input data used in the analyses are also provided in Supplementary Table 3 , and Supplementary Table 2 provides a template of the data collection form.

Code availability

All code used for these analyses is publicly available online ( https://github.com/ihmeuw-msca/burden-of-proof ).

Doll, R. & Hill, A. B. Smoking and carcinoma of the lung. Br. Med. J. 2 , 739–748 (1950).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Di Cicco, M. E., Ragazzo, V. & Jacinto, T. Mortality in relation to smoking: the British Doctors Study. Breathe 12 , 275–276 (2016).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 36 (WHO, 2003).

Dai, X., Gakidou, E. & Lopez, A. D. Evolution of the global smoking epidemic over the past half century: strengthening the evidence base for policy action. Tob. Control 31 , 129–137 (2022).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dikshit, R. P. & Kanhere, S. Tobacco habits and risk of lung, oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancer: a population-based case-control study in Bhopal, India. Int. J. Epidemiol. 29 , 609–614 (2000).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Liaw, K. M. & Chen, C. J. Mortality attributable to cigarette smoking in Taiwan: a 12-year follow-up study. Tob. Control 7 , 141–148 (1998).

Gandini, S. et al. Tobacco smoking and cancer: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Cancer 122 , 155–164 (2008).

Deng, X., Yuan, C. & Chang, D. Interactions between single nucleotide polymorphism of SERPINA1 gene and smoking in association with COPD: a case–control study. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 12 , 259–265 (2017).

Leem, A. Y., Park, B., Kim, Y. S., Jung, J. Y. & Won, S. Incidence and risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a Korean community-based cohort. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 13 , 509–517 (2018).

Forey, B. A., Thornton, A. J. & Lee, P. N. Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence relating smoking to COPD, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. BMC Pulmon. Med. 11 , 36 (2011).

Article   Google Scholar  

Tan, J. et al. Smoking, blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease mortality in a large cohort of Chinese men with 15 years follow-up. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15 , E1026 (2018).

Doll, R., Peto, R., Boreham, J. & Sutherland, I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years’ observations on male British doctors. Br. Med. J. 328 , 1519 (2004).

Huxley, R. R. & Woodward, M. Cigarette smoking as a risk factor for coronary heart disease in women compared with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Lancet 378 , 1297–1305 (2011).

Hbejan, K. Smoking effect on ischemic heart disease in young patients. Heart Views 12 , 1–6 (2011).

Chao, H. et al. A meta-analysis of active smoking and risk of meningioma. Tob. Induc. Dis. 19 , 34 (2021).

Shi, H., Shao, X. & Hong, Y. Association between cigarette smoking and the susceptibility of acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Rev. Med Pharm. Sci. 23 , 10049–10057 (2019).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Macacu, A., Autier, P., Boniol, M. & Boyle, P. Active and passive smoking and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 154 , 213–224 (2015).

Pujades-Rodriguez, M. et al. Heterogeneous associations between smoking and a wide range of initial presentations of cardiovascular disease in 1 937 360 people in England: lifetime risks and implications for risk prediction. Int. J. Epidemiol. 44 , 129–141 (2015).

Kanazir, M. et al. Risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma: a case-control study in Belgrade (Serbia). Tumori 96 , 911–917 (2010).

Pytynia, K. B. et al. Matched-pair analysis of survival of never smokers and ever smokers with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J. Clin. Oncol. 22 , 3981–3988 (2004).

Barengo, N. C., Antikainen, R., Harald, K. & Jousilahti, P. Smoking and cancer, cardiovascular and total mortality among older adults: the Finrisk Study. Prev. Med. Rep. 14 , 100875 (2019).

Guo, Y. et al. Modifiable risk factors for cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Mov. Disord. 34 , 876–883 (2019).

Aune, D., Vatten, L. J. & Boffetta, P. Tobacco smoking and the risk of gallbladder disease. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 31 , 643–653 (2016).

Qin, L., Deng, H.-Y., Chen, S.-J. & Wei, W. Relationship between cigarette smoking and risk of chronic myeloid leukaemia: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Hematology 22 , 193–200 (2017).

Petrick, J. L. et al. Tobacco, alcohol use and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: the Liver Cancer Pooling Project. Br. J. Cancer 118 , 1005–1012 (2018).

United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Smoking and Health. Report of the Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health to the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/index.htm (US DHEW, 1964).

United States Public Health Service Office of the Surgeon General & National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. Smoking Cessation: A Report of the Surgeon General . (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2020).

Zheng, P., Barber, R., Sorensen, R. J. D., Murray, C. J. L. & Aravkin, A. Y. Trimmed constrained mixed effects models: formulations and algorithms. J. Comput. Graph Stat. 30 , 544–556 (2021).

Zheng, P. et al. The Burden of Proof studies: assessing the evidence of risk. Nat. Med. in press (2022).

Reitsma, M. B. et al. Spatial, temporal, and demographic patterns in prevalence of smoking tobacco use and attributable disease burden in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 397 , 2337–2360 (2021).

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Br. Med. J. 339 , b2535 (2009).

Liu, Z. Y., He, X. Z. & Chapman, R. S. Smoking and other risk factors for lung cancer in Xuanwei, China. Int. J. Epidemiol. 20 , 26–31 (1991).

Brownson, R. C., Reif, J. S., Keefe, T. J., Ferguson, S. W. & Pritzl, J. A. Risk factors for adenocarcinoma of the lung. Am. J. Epidemiol. 125 , 25–34 (1987).

Marugame, T. et al. Lung cancer death rates by smoking status: comparison of the Three-Prefecture Cohort study in Japan to the Cancer Prevention Study II in the USA. Cancer Sci. 96 , 120–126 (2005).

Dosemeci, M., Gokmen, I., Unsal, M., Hayes, R. B. & Blair, A. Tobacco, alcohol use, and risks of laryngeal and lung cancer by subsite and histologic type in Turkey. Cancer Causes Control 8 , 729–737 (1997).

Freedman, N. D. et al. Impact of changing US cigarette smoking patterns on incident cancer: risks of 20 smoking-related cancers among the women and men of the NIH-AARP cohort. Int. J. Epidemiol. 45 , 846–856 (2016).

Bae, J.-M. et al. Lung cancer incidence by smoking status in Korean men: 16 years of observations in the Seoul Male Cancer Cohort study. J. Korean Med. Sci. 28 , 636–637 (2013).

Everatt, R., Kuzmickienė, I., Virvičiūtė, D. & Tamošiūnas, A. Cigarette smoking, educational level and total and site-specific cancer: a cohort study in men in Lithuania. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 23 , 579–586 (2014).

Nordlund, L. A., Carstensen, J. M. & Pershagen, G. Are male and female smokers at equal risk of smoking-related cancer: evidence from a Swedish prospective study. Scand. J. Public Health 27 , 56–62 (1999).

Siemiatycki, J., Krewski, D., Franco, E. & Kaiserman, M. Associations between cigarette smoking and each of 21 types of cancer: a multi-site case–control study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 24 , 504–514 (1995).

Chyou, P. H., Nomura, A. M. & Stemmermann, G. N. A prospective study of the attributable risk of cancer due to cigarette smoking. Am. J. Public Health 82 , 37–40 (1992).

Potter, J. D., Sellers, T. A., Folsom, A. R. & McGovern, P. G. Alcohol, beer, and lung cancer in postmenopausal women. The Iowa Women’s Health Study. Ann. Epidemiol. 2 , 587–595 (1992).

Chyou, P. H., Nomura, A. M., Stemmermann, G. N. & Kato, I. Lung cancer: a prospective study of smoking, occupation, and nutrient intake. Arch. Environ. Health 48 , 69–72 (1993).

Pesch, B. et al. Cigarette smoking and lung cancer–relative risk estimates for the major histological types from a pooled analysis of case–control studies. Int. J. Cancer 131 , 1210–1219 (2012).

Jöckel, K. H. et al. Occupational and environmental hazards associated with lung cancer. Int. J. Epidemiol. 21 , 202–213 (1992).

Jöckel, K. H., Ahrens, W., Jahn, I., Pohlabeln, H. & Bolm-Audorff, U. Occupational risk factors for lung cancer: a case-control study in West Germany. Int. J. Epidemiol. 27 , 549–560 (1998).

Lei, Y. X., Cai, W. C., Chen, Y. Z. & Du, Y. X. Some lifestyle factors in human lung cancer: a case-control study of 792 lung cancer cases. Lung Cancer 14 , S121–S136 (1996).

Pawlega, J., Rachtan, J. & Dyba, T. Evaluation of certain risk factors for lung cancer in Cracow (Poland)—a case–control study. Acta Oncol. 36 , 471–476 (1997).

Mao, Y. et al. Socioeconomic status and lung cancer risk in Canada. Int. J. Epidemiol. 30 , 809–817 (2001).

Barbone, F., Bovenzi, M., Cavallieri, F. & Stanta, G. Cigarette smoking and histologic type of lung cancer in men. Chest 112 , 1474–1479 (1997).

Matos, E., Vilensky, M., Boffetta, P. & Kogevinas, M. Lung cancer and smoking: a case–control study in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Lung Cancer 21 , 155–163 (1998).

Simonato, L. et al. Lung cancer and cigarette smoking in Europe: an update of risk estimates and an assessment of inter-country heterogeneity. Int. J. Cancer 91 , 876–887 (2001).

Risch, H. A. et al. Are female smokers at higher risk for lung cancer than male smokers? A case–control analysis by histologic type. Am. J. Epidemiol. 138 , 281–293 (1993).

Sankaranarayanan, R. et al. A case–control study of diet and lung cancer in Kerala, south India. Int. J. Cancer 58 , 644–649 (1994).

Band, P. R. et al. Identification of occupational cancer risks in British Columbia. Part I: methodology, descriptive results, and analysis of cancer risks, by cigarette smoking categories of 15,463 incident cancer cases. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 41 , 224–232 (1999).

Becher, H., Jöckel, K. H., Timm, J., Wichmann, H. E. & Drescher, K. Smoking cessation and nonsmoking intervals: effect of different smoking patterns on lung cancer risk. Cancer Causes Control 2 , 381–387 (1991).

Brockmöller, J., Kerb, R., Drakoulis, N., Nitz, M. & Roots, I. Genotype and phenotype of glutathione S-transferase class mu isoenzymes mu and psi in lung cancer patients and controls. Cancer Res. 53 , 1004–1011 (1993).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vena, J. E., Byers, T. E., Cookfair, D. & Swanson, M. Occupation and lung cancer risk. An analysis by histologic subtypes. Cancer 56 , 910–917 (1985).

Cascorbi, I. et al. Homozygous rapid arylamine N -acetyltransferase (NAT2) genotype as a susceptibility factor for lung cancer. Cancer Res. 56 , 3961–3966 (1996).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chiazze, L., Watkins, D. K. & Fryar, C. A case–control study of malignant and non-malignant respiratory disease among employees of a fiberglass manufacturing facility. Br. J. Ind. Med 49 , 326–331 (1992).

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ando, M. et al. Attributable and absolute risk of lung cancer death by smoking status: findings from the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study. Int. J. Cancer 105 , 249–254 (2003).

De Matteis, S. et al. Are women who smoke at higher risk for lung cancer than men who smoke? Am. J. Epidemiol. 177 , 601–612 (2013).

He, Y. et al. Changes in smoking behavior and subsequent mortality risk during a 35-year follow-up of a cohort in Xi’an, China. Am. J. Epidemiol. 179 , 1060–1070 (2014).

Nishino, Y. et al. Cancer incidence profiles in the Miyagi Cohort Study. J. Epidemiol. 14 , S7–S11 (2004).

Papadopoulos, A. et al. Cigarette smoking and lung cancer in women: results of the French ICARE case–control study. Lung Cancer 74 , 369–377 (2011).

Shimazu, T. et al. Alcohol and risk of lung cancer among Japanese men: data from a large-scale population-based cohort study, the JPHC study. Cancer Causes Control 19 , 1095–1102 (2008).

Tindle, H. A. et al. Lifetime smoking history and risk of lung cancer: results from the Framingham Heart Study. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 110 , 1201–1207 (2018).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Yong, L. C. et al. Intake of vitamins E, C, and A and risk of lung cancer. The NHANES I epidemiologic followup study. First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am. J. Epidemiol. 146 , 231–243 (1997).

Hansen, M. S. et al. Sex differences in risk of smoking-associated lung cancer: results from a cohort of 600,000 Norwegians. Am. J. Epidemiol. 187 , 971–981 (2018).

Boffetta, P. et al. Tobacco smoking as a risk factor of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma of the lung: pooled analysis of seven case-control studies in the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Cancer Causes Control 22 , 73–79 (2011).

Yun, Y. D. et al. Hazard ratio of smoking on lung cancer in Korea according to histological type and gender. Lung 194 , 281–289 (2016).

Suzuki, I. et al. Risk factors for lung cancer in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: a case–control study. Lung Cancer 11 , 179–190 (1994).

De Stefani, E., Deneo-Pellegrini, H., Carzoglio, J. C., Ronco, A. & Mendilaharsu, M. Dietary nitrosodimethylamine and the risk of lung cancer: a case–control study from Uruguay. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 5 , 679–682 (1996).

Google Scholar  

Kreuzer, M. et al. Risk factors for lung cancer in young adults. Am. J. Epidemiol. 147 , 1028–1037 (1998).

Armadans-Gil, L., Vaqué-Rafart, J., Rosselló, J., Olona, M. & Alseda, M. Cigarette smoking and male lung cancer risk with special regard to type of tobacco. Int. J. Epidemiol. 28 , 614–619 (1999).

Kubík, A. K., Zatloukal, P., Tomásek, L. & Petruzelka, L. Lung cancer risk among Czech women: a case–control study. Prev. Med. 34 , 436–444 (2002).

Rachtan, J. Smoking, passive smoking and lung cancer cell types among women in Poland. Lung Cancer 35 , 129–136 (2002).

Thun, M. J. et al. 50-year trends in smoking-related mortality in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 368 , 351–364 (2013).

Zatloukal, P., Kubík, A., Pauk, N., Tomásek, L. & Petruzelka, L. Adenocarcinoma of the lung among women: risk associated with smoking, prior lung disease, diet and menstrual and pregnancy history. Lung Cancer 41 , 283–293 (2003).

Hansen, M. S., Licaj, I., Braaten, T., Lund, E. & Gram, I. T. The fraction of lung cancer attributable to smoking in the Norwegian Women and Cancer (NOWAC) Study. Br. J. Cancer 124 , 658–662 (2021).

Zhang, P. et al. Association of smoking and polygenic risk with the incidence of lung cancer: a prospective cohort study. Br. J. Cancer 126 , 1637–1646 (2022).

Weber, M. F. et al. Cancer incidence and cancer death in relation to tobacco smoking in a population-based Australian cohort study. Int. J. Cancer 149 , 1076–1088 (2021).

Guo, L.-W. et al. A risk prediction model for selecting high-risk population for computed tomography lung cancer screening in China. Lung Cancer 163 , 27–34 (2022).

Mezzoiuso, A. G., Odone, A., Signorelli, C. & Russo, A. G. Association between smoking and cancers among women: results from the FRiCaM multisite cohort study. J. Cancer 12 , 3136–3144 (2021).

Hawrysz, I., Wadolowska, L., Slowinska, M. A., Czerwinska, A. & Golota, J. J. Adherence to prudent and mediterranean dietary patterns is inversely associated with lung cancer in moderate but not heavy male Polish smokers: a case–control study. Nutrients 12 , E3788 (2020).

Huang, C.-C., Lai, C.-Y., Tsai, C.-H., Wang, J.-Y. & Wong, R.-H. Combined effects of cigarette smoking, DNA methyltransferase 3B genetic polymorphism, and DNA damage on lung cancer. BMC Cancer 21 , 1066 (2021).

Viner, B., Barberio, A. M., Haig, T. R., Friedenreich, C. M. & Brenner, D. R. The individual and combined effects of alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking on site-specific cancer risk in a prospective cohort of 26,607 adults: results from Alberta’s Tomorrow Project. Cancer Causes Control 30 , 1313–1326 (2019).

Park, E. Y., Lim, M. K., Park, E., Oh, J.-K. & Lee, D.-H. Relationship between urinary 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol and lung cancer risk in the general population: a community-based prospective cohort study. Front. Oncol. 11 , 611674 (2021).

De Stefani, E., Deneo-Pellegrini, H., Mendilaharsu, M., Carzoglio, J. C. & Ronco, A. Dietary fat and lung cancer: a case–control study in Uruguay. Cancer Causes Control 8 , 913–921 (1997).

Wünsch-Filho, V., Moncau, J. E., Mirabelli, D. & Boffetta, P. Occupational risk factors of lung cancer in São Paulo, Brazil. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 24 , 118–124 (1998).

Hu, J. et al. A case-control study of diet and lung cancer in northeast China. Int. J. Cancer 71 , 924–931 (1997).

Jia, G., Wen, W., Massion, P. P., Shu, X.-O. & Zheng, W. Incorporating both genetic and tobacco smoking data to identify high-risk smokers for lung cancer screening. Carcinogenesis 42 , 874–879 (2021).

Rusmaully, J. et al. Risk of lung cancer among women in relation to lifetime history of tobacco smoking: a population-based case–control study in France (the WELCA study). BMC Cancer 21 , 711 (2021).

Jin, K. et al. Tobacco smoking modifies the association between hormonal factors and lung cancer occurrence among post-menopausal Chinese women. Transl. Oncol. 12 , 819–827 (2019).

Tse, L. A., Wang, F., Wong, M. C.-S., Au, J. S.-K. & Yu, I. T.-S. Risk assessment and prediction for lung cancer among Hong Kong Chinese men. BMC Cancer 22 , 585 (2022).

Huang, C.-C. et al. Joint effects of cigarette smoking and green tea consumption with miR-29b and DNMT3b mRNA expression in the development of lung cancer. Genes 13 , 836 (2022).

Hosseini, M. et al. Environmental risk factors for lung cancer in Iran: a case–control study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 38 , 989–996 (2009).

Naghibzadeh-Tahami, A. et al. Is opium use associated with an increased risk of lung cancer? A case–control study. BMC Cancer 20 , 807 (2020).

Shimatani, K., Ito, H., Matsuo, K., Tajima, K. & Takezaki, T. Cumulative cigarette tar exposure and lung cancer risk among Japanese smokers. Jpn J. Clin. Oncol. 50 , 1009–1017 (2020).

Lai, C.-Y. et al. Genetic polymorphism of catechol- O -methyltransferase modulates the association of green tea consumption and lung cancer. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 28 , 316–322 (2019).

Schwartz, A. G. et al. Hormone use, reproductive history, and risk of lung cancer: the Women’s Health Initiative studies. J. Thorac. Oncol. 10 , 1004–1013 (2015).

Kreuzer, M., Gerken, M., Heinrich, J., Kreienbrock, L. & Wichmann, H.-E. Hormonal factors and risk of lung cancer among women? Int. J. Epidemiol. 32 , 263–271 (2003).

Sreeja, L. et al. Possible risk modification by CYP1A1, GSTM1 and GSTT1 gene polymorphisms in lung cancer susceptibility in a South Indian population. J. Hum. Genet. 50 , 618–627 (2005).

Siemiatycki, J. et al. Are the apparent effects of cigarette smoking on lung and bladder cancers due to uncontrolled confounding by occupational exposures? Epidemiology 5 , 57–65 (1994).

Chan-Yeung, M. et al. Risk factors associated with lung cancer in Hong Kong. Lung Cancer 40 , 131–140 (2003).

Lawania, S., Singh, N., Behera, D. & Sharma, S. Xeroderma pigmentosum complementation group D polymorphism toward lung cancer susceptibility survival and response in patients treated with platinum chemotherapy. Future Oncol. 13 , 2645–2665 (2017).

De Stefani, E. et al. Mate drinking and risk of lung cancer in males: a case-control study from Uruguay. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 5 , 515–519 (1996).

Pérez-Padilla, R. et al. Exposure to biomass smoke and chronic airway disease in Mexican women. A case-control study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 154 , 701–706 (1996).

Zhang, X.-R. et al. Glucosamine use, smoking and risk of incident chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a large prospective cohort study. Br. J. Nutr . https://doi.org/10.1017/S000711452100372X (2021).

Johannessen, A., Omenaas, E., Bakke, P. & Gulsvik, A. Incidence of GOLD-defined chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a general adult population. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 9 , 926–932 (2005).

Fox, J. Life-style and mortality: a large-scale census-based cohort study in Japan. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 45 , 173 (1991).

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Thomson, B. et al. Low-intensity daily smoking and cause-specific mortality in Mexico: prospective study of 150 000 adults. Int. J. Epidemiol. 50 , 955–964 (2021).

van Durme, Y. M. T. A. et al. Prevalence, incidence, and lifetime risk for the development of COPD in the elderly: the Rotterdam study. Chest 135 , 368–377 (2009).

Li, L. et al. SERPINE2 rs16865421 polymorphism is associated with a lower risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the Uygur population: a case–control study. J. Gene Med. 21 , e3106 (2019).

Ganbold, C. et al. The cumulative effect of gene-gene interactions between GSTM1 , CHRNA3 , CHRNA5 and SOD3 gene polymorphisms combined with smoking on COPD risk. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 16 , 2857–2868 (2021).

Omori, H. et al. Twelve-year cumulative incidence of airflow obstruction among Japanese males. Intern. Med. 50 , 1537–1544 (2011).

Manson, J. E., Ajani, U. A., Liu, S., Nathan, D. M. & Hennekens, C. H. A prospective study of cigarette smoking and the incidence of diabetes mellitus among US male physicians. Am. J. Med. 109 , 538–542 (2000).

Lv, J. et al. Adherence to a healthy lifestyle and the risk of type 2 diabetes in Chinese adults. Int. J. Epidemiol. 46 , 1410–1420 (2017).

Waki, K. et al. Alcohol consumption and other risk factors for self-reported diabetes among middle-aged Japanese: a population-based prospective study in the JPHC study cohort I. Diabet. Med. 22 , 323–331 (2005).

Meisinger, C., Döring, A., Thorand, B. & Löwel, H. Association of cigarette smoking and tar and nicotine intake with development of type 2 diabetes mellitus in men and women from the general population: the MONICA/KORA Augsburg Cohort Study. Diabetologia 49 , 1770–1776 (2006).

Huh, Y. et al. Association of smoking status with the risk of type 2 diabetes among young adults: a nationwide cohort study in South Korea. Nicotine Tob. Res. 24 , 1234–1240 (2022).

Sawada, S. S., Lee, I.-M., Muto, T., Matuszaki, K. & Blair, S. N. Cardiorespiratory fitness and the incidence of type 2 diabetes: prospective study of Japanese men. Diabetes Care 26 , 2918–2922 (2003).

Will, J. C., Galuska, D. A., Ford, E. S., Mokdad, A. & Calle, E. E. Cigarette smoking and diabetes mellitus: evidence of a positive association from a large prospective cohort study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 30 , 540–546 (2001).

Nakanishi, N., Nakamura, K., Matsuo, Y., Suzuki, K. & Tatara, K. Cigarette smoking and risk for impaired fasting glucose and type 2 diabetes in middle-aged Japanese men. Ann. Intern. Med. 133 , 183–191 (2000).

Sairenchi, T. et al. Cigarette smoking and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus among middle-aged and elderly Japanese men and women. Am. J. Epidemiol. 160 , 158–162 (2004).

Hou, X. et al. Cigarette smoking is associated with a lower prevalence of newly diagnosed diabetes screened by OGTT than non-smoking in Chinese men with normal weight. PLoS ONE 11 , e0149234 (2016).

Hu, F. B. et al. Diet, lifestyle, and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in women. N. Engl. J. Med. 345 , 790–797 (2001).

Teratani, T. et al. Dose-response relationship between tobacco or alcohol consumption and the development of diabetes mellitus in Japanese male workers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 125 , 276–282 (2012).

Kawakami, N., Takatsuka, N., Shimizu, H. & Ishibashi, H. Effects of smoking on the incidence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Replication and extension in a Japanese cohort of male employees. Am. J. Epidemiol. 145 , 103–109 (1997).

Patja, K. et al. Effects of smoking, obesity and physical activity on the risk of type 2 diabetes in middle-aged Finnish men and women. J. Intern. Med. 258 , 356–362 (2005).

White, W. B. et al. High-intensity cigarette smoking is associated with incident diabetes mellitus in Black adults: the Jackson Heart Study. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 7 , e007413 (2018).

Uchimoto, S. et al. Impact of cigarette smoking on the incidence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus in middle-aged Japanese men: the Osaka Health Survey. Diabet. Med . 16 , 951–955 (1999).

Rimm, E. B., Chan, J., Stampfer, M. J., Colditz, G. A. & Willett, W. C. Prospective study of cigarette smoking, alcohol use, and the risk of diabetes in men. Br. Med. J. 310 , 555–559 (1995).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Hilawe, E. H. et al. Smoking and diabetes: is the association mediated by adiponectin, leptin, or C-reactive protein? J. Epidemiol. 25 , 99–109 (2015).

InterAct, Consortium et al. Smoking and long-term risk of type 2 diabetes: the EPIC-InterAct study in European populations. Diabetes Care 37 , 3164–3171 (2014).

Jee, S. H., Foong, A. W., Hur, N. W. & Samet, J. M. Smoking and risk for diabetes incidence and mortality in Korean men and women. Diabetes Care 33 , 2567–2572 (2010).

Rasouli, B. et al. Smoking and the risk of LADA: results from a Swedish population-based case-control study. Diabetes Care 39 , 794–800 (2016).

Wannamethee, S. G., Shaper, A. G. & Perry, I. J., British Regional Heart Study. Smoking as a modifiable risk factor for type 2 diabetes in middle-aged men. Diabetes Care 24 , 1590–1595 (2001).

Radzeviciene, L. & Ostrauskas, R. Smoking habits and type 2 diabetes mellitus in women. Women Health 58 , 884–897 (2018).

Carlsson, S., Midthjell, K. & Grill, V., Nord-Trøndelag Study. Smoking is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes but a decreased risk of autoimmune diabetes in adults: an 11-year follow-up of incidence of diabetes in the Nord-Trøndelag study. Diabetologia 47 , 1953–1956 (2004).

Akter, S. et al. Smoking, smoking cessation, and the risk of type 2 diabetes among Japanese adults: Japan Epidemiology Collaboration on Occupational Health Study. PLoS ONE 10 , e0132166 (2015).

Pirie, K. et al. The 21st century hazards of smoking and benefits of stopping: a prospective study of one million women in the UK. Lancet 381 , 133–141 (2013).

Park, C.-H. et al. [The effect of smoking status upon occurrence of impaired fasting glucose or type 2 diabetes in Korean men]. J. Prev. Med. Public Health 41 , 249–254 (2008).

Doi, Y. et al. Two risk score models for predicting incident Type 2 diabetes in Japan. Diabet. Med. 29 , 107–114 (2012).

van den Brandt, P. A. A possible dual effect of cigarette smoking on the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 32 , 683–690 (2017).

Dossus, L. et al. Active and passive cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk: results from the EPIC cohort. Int. J. Cancer 134 , 1871–1888 (2014).

Kawai, M., Malone, K. E., Tang, M.-T. C. & Li, C. I. Active smoking and the risk of estrogen receptor-positive and triple-negative breast cancer among women ages 20 to 44 years. Cancer 120 , 1026–1034 (2014).

Reynolds, P. et al. Active smoking, household passive smoking, and breast cancer: evidence from the California Teachers Study. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 96 , 29–37 (2004).

Ellingjord-Dale, M. et al. Alcohol, physical activity, smoking, and breast cancer subtypes in a large, nested case-control study from the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 26 , 1736–1744 (2017).

Arthur, R. et al. Association between lifestyle, menstrual/reproductive history, and histological factors and risk of breast cancer in women biopsied for benign breast disease. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 165 , 623–631 (2017).

Luo, J. et al. Association of active and passive smoking with risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women: a prospective cohort study. Br. Med. J. 342 , d1016 (2011).

White, A. J., D’Aloisio, A. A., Nichols, H. B., DeRoo, L. A. & Sandler, D. P. Breast cancer and exposure to tobacco smoke during potential windows of susceptibility. Cancer Causes Control 28 , 667–675 (2017).

Gram, I. T. et al. Breast cancer risk among women who start smoking as teenagers. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 14 , 61–66 (2005).

Gammon, M. D. et al. Cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk among young women (United States). Cancer Causes Control 9 , 583–590 (1998).

Magnusson, C., Wedrén, S. & Rosenberg, L. U. Cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk: a population-based study in Sweden. Br. J. Cancer 97 , 1287–1290 (2007).

Chu, S. Y. et al. Cigarette smoking and the risk of breast cancer. Am. J. Epidemiol. 131 , 244–253 (1990).

Lemogne, C. et al. Depression and the risk of cancer: a 15-year follow-up study of the GAZEL cohort. Am. J. Epidemiol. 178 , 1712–1720 (2013).

Morabia, A., Bernstein, M., Héritier, S. & Khatchatrian, N. Relation of breast cancer with passive and active exposure to tobacco smoke. Am. J. Epidemiol. 143 , 918–928 (1996).

Conlon, M. S. C., Johnson, K. C., Bewick, M. A., Lafrenie, R. M. & Donner, A. Smoking (active and passive), N -acetyltransferase 2, and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. 34 , 142–149 (2010).

Ozasa, K., Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer. Smoking and mortality in the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer (JACC). Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 8 , 89–96 (2007).

Jones, M. E., Schoemaker, M. J., Wright, L. B., Ashworth, A. & Swerdlow, A. J. Smoking and risk of breast cancer in the Generations Study cohort. Breast Cancer Res. 19 , 118 (2017).

Bjerkaas, E. et al. Smoking duration before first childbirth: an emerging risk factor for breast cancer? Results from 302,865 Norwegian women. Cancer Causes Control 24 , 1347–1356 (2013).

Gram, I. T., Little, M. A., Lund, E. & Braaten, T. The fraction of breast cancer attributable to smoking: the Norwegian women and cancer study 1991–2012. Br. J. Cancer 115 , 616–623 (2016).

Li, C. I., Malone, K. E. & Daling, J. R. The relationship between various measures of cigarette smoking and risk of breast cancer among older women 65–79 years of age (United States). Cancer Causes Control 16 , 975–985 (2005).

Xue, F., Willett, W. C., Rosner, B. A., Hankinson, S. E. & Michels, K. B. Cigarette smoking and the incidence of breast cancer. Arch. Intern. Med. 171 , 125–133 (2011).

Parker, A. S., Cerhan, J. R., Putnam, S. D., Cantor, K. P. & Lynch, C. F. A cohort study of farming and risk of prostate cancer in Iowa. Epidemiology 10 , 452–455 (1999).

Sawada, N. et al. Alcohol and smoking and subsequent risk of prostate cancer in Japanese men: the Japan Public Health Center-based prospective study. Int. J. Cancer 134 , 971–978 (2014).

Hiatt, R. A., Armstrong, M. A., Klatsky, A. L. & Sidney, S. Alcohol consumption, smoking, and other risk factors and prostate cancer in a large health plan cohort in California (United States). Cancer Causes Control 5 , 66–72 (1994).

Cerhan, J. R. et al. Association of smoking, body mass, and physical activity with risk of prostate cancer in the Iowa 65+ Rural Health Study (United States). Cancer Causes Control 8 , 229–238 (1997).

Watters, J. L., Park, Y., Hollenbeck, A., Schatzkin, A. & Albanes, D. Cigarette smoking and prostate cancer in a prospective US cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 18 , 2427–2435 (2009).

Butler, L. M., Wang, R., Wong, A. S., Koh, W.-P. & Yu, M. C. Cigarette smoking and risk of prostate cancer among Singapore Chinese. Cancer Causes Control 20 , 1967–1974 (2009).

Lotufo, P. A., Lee, I. M., Ajani, U. A., Hennekens, C. H. & Manson, J. E. Cigarette smoking and risk of prostate cancer in the physicians’ health study (United States). Int. J. Cancer 87 , 141–144 (2000).

Hsing, A. W. et al. Diet, tobacco use, and fatal prostate cancer: results from the Lutheran Brotherhood Cohort Study. Cancer Res. 50 , 6836–6840 (1990).

Veierød, M. B., Laake, P. & Thelle, D. S. Dietary fat intake and risk of prostate cancer: a prospective study of 25,708 Norwegian men. Int. J. Cancer 73 , 634–638 (1997).

Meyer, J., Rohrmann, S., Bopp, M. & Faeh, D. & Swiss National Cohort Study Group. Impact of smoking and excess body weight on overall and site-specific cancer mortality risk. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev . 24 , 1516–1522 (2015).

Putnam, S. D. et al. Lifestyle and anthropometric risk factors for prostate cancer in a cohort of Iowa men. Ann. Epidemiol. 10 , 361–369 (2000).

Taghizadeh, N., Vonk, J. M. & Boezen, H. M. Lifetime smoking history and cause-specific mortality in a cohort study with 43 years of follow-up. PLoS ONE 11 , e0153310 (2016).

Park, S.-Y. et al. Racial/ethnic differences in lifestyle-related factors and prostate cancer risk: the Multiethnic Cohort Study. Cancer Causes Control 26 , 1507–1515 (2015).

Nomura, A. M., Lee, J., Stemmermann, G. N. & Combs, G. F. Serum selenium and subsequent risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 9 , 883–887 (2000).

Rodriguez, C., Tatham, L. M., Thun, M. J., Calle, E. E. & Heath, C. W. Smoking and fatal prostate cancer in a large cohort of adult men. Am. J. Epidemiol. 145 , 466–475 (1997).

Rohrmann, S. et al. Smoking and risk of fatal prostate cancer in a prospective U.S. study. Urology 69 , 721–725 (2007).

Giovannucci, E. et al. Smoking and risk of total and fatal prostate cancer in United States health professionals. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 8 , 277–282 (1999).

Rohrmann, S. et al. Smoking and the risk of prostate cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Br. J. Cancer 108 , 708–714 (2013).

Lund Nilsen, T. I., Johnsen, R. & Vatten, L. J. Socio-economic and lifestyle factors associated with the risk of prostate cancer. Br. J. Cancer 82 , 1358–1363 (2000).

Hsing, A. W., McLaughlin, J. K., Hrubec, Z., Blot, W. J. & Fraumeni, J. F. Tobacco use and prostate cancer: 26-year follow-up of US veterans. Am. J. Epidemiol. 133 , 437–441 (1991).

Murray, C. J. L. et al. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 396 , 1223–1249 (2020).

Bero, L. A. & Jadad, A. R. How consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making. Ann. Intern. Med. 127 , 37–42 (1997).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Cigarette smoking among adults and trends in smoking cessation—United States, 2008. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 58 , 1227–1232 (2009).

Prochaska, J. O. & Goldstein, M. G. Process of smoking cessation: implications for clinicians. Clin. Chest Med. 12 , 727–735 (1991).

Page, M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br. Med. J. 372 , n71 (2021).

Stevens, G. A. et al. Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting: the GATHER statement. Lancet 388 , e19–e23 (2016).

BMJ Best Practice. What is GRADE? https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/us/toolkit/learn-ebm/what-is-grade (BMJ, 2021).

The GRADE Working Group. GRADE handbook . https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html (The GRADE Working Group, 2013).

Efron, B., Hastie, T., Johnstone, I. & Tibshirani, R. Least angle regression. Ann. Stat. 32 , 407–499 (2004).

Tibshirani, R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 58 , 267–288 (1996).

von Hippel, P. T. The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 15 , 35 (2015).

Kontopantelis, E., Springate, D. A. & Reeves, D. A re-analysis of the Cochrane Library data: the dangers of unobserved heterogeneity in meta-analyses. PLoS ONE 8 , e69930 (2013).

Biggerstaff, B. J. & Tweedie, R. L. Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 16 , 753–768 (1997).

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M. & Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br. Med. J. 315 , 629–634 (1997).

Lee, P. N., Forey, B. A. & Coombs, K. J. Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence in the 1900s relating smoking to lung cancer. BMC Cancer 12 , 385 (2012).

Rücker, G., Carpenter, J. R. & Schwarzer, G. Detecting and adjusting for small-study effects in meta-analysis. Biometr. J. 53 , 351–368 (2011).

Wu, Z.-J., Zhao, P., Liu, B. & Yuan, Z.-C. Effect of cigarette smoking on risk of hip fracture in men: a meta-analysis of 14 prospective cohort studies. PLoS ONE 11 , e0168990 (2016).

Thun, M. J. et al. in Cigarette Smoking Behaviour in the United States: changes in cigarette-related disease risks and their implication for prevention and control (eds Burns, D.M. et al.) Tobacco Control Monograph No. 8 Ch. 4 (National Cancer Institute, 1997).

Tolstrup, J. S. et al. Smoking and risk of coronary heart disease in younger, middle-aged, and older adults. Am. J. Public Health 104 , 96–102 (2014).

Jonas, M. A., Oates, J. A., Ockene, J. K. & Hennekens, C. H. Statement on smoking and cardiovascular disease for health care professionals. American Heart Association. Circulation 86 , 1664–1669 (1992).

Khan, S. S. et al. Cigarette smoking and competing risks for fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease subtypes across the life course. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 10 , e021751 (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research reported in this publication was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funders. The study funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the final report or the decision to publish.

We thank the Tobacco Metrics Team Advisory Group for their valuable input and review of the work. The members of the Advisory Group are: P. Allebeck, R. Chandora, J. Drope, M. Eriksen, E. Fernández, H. Gouda, R. Kennedy, D. McGoldrick, L. Pan, K. Schotte, E. Sebrie, J. Soriano, M. Tynan and K. Welding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Xiaochen Dai, Gabriela F. Gil, Marissa B. Reitsma, Noah S. Ahmad, Jason A. Anderson, Catherine Bisignano, Sinclair Carr, Rachel Feldman, Simon I. Hay, Jiawei He, Vincent Iannucci, Hilary R. Lawlor, Matthew J. Malloy, Laurie B. Marczak, Susan A. McLaughlin, Larissa Morikawa, Erin C. Mullany, Sneha I. Nicholson, Erin M. O’Connell, Chukwuma Okereke, Reed J. D. Sorensen, Joanna Whisnant, Aleksandr Y. Aravkin, Peng Zheng, Christopher J. L. Murray & Emmanuela Gakidou

Department of Health Metrics Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Xiaochen Dai, Simon I. Hay, Jiawei He, Peng Zheng, Christopher J. L. Murray & Emmanuela Gakidou

Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

• Aleksandr Y. Aravkin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

X.D., S.I.H., S.A.M., E.C.M., E.M.O., C.J.L.M. and E.G. managed the estimation or publications process. X.D. and G.F.G. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. X.D. and P.Z. had primary responsibility for applying analytical methods to produce estimates. X.D., G.F.G., N.S.A., J.A.A., S.C., R.F., V.I., M.J.M., L.M., S.I.N., C.O., M.B.R. and J.W. had primary responsibility for seeking, cataloguing, extracting or cleaning data, and for designing or coding figures and tables. X.D., G.F.G., M.B.R., N.S.A., H.R.L., C.O. and J.W. provided data or critical feedback on data sources. X.D., J.H., R.J.D.S., A.Y.A., P.Z., C.J.L.M. and E.G. developed methods or computational machinery. X.D., G.F.G., M.B.R., S.I.H., J.H., R.J.D.S., A.Y.A., P.Z., C.J.L.M. and E.G. provided critical feedback on methods or results. X.D., G.F.G., M.B.R., C.B., S.I.H., L.B.M., S.A.M., A.Y.A. and E.G. drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content. X.D., S.I.H., L.B.M., E.C.M., E.M.O. and E.G. managed the overall research enterprise.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaochen Dai .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Medicine thanks Frederic Sitas and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Jennifer Sargent and Ming Yang, in collaboration with the Nature Medicine team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 prisma 2020 flow diagram for an updated systematic review of the smoking and tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer risk-outcome pair..

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and lung cancer conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

Extended Data Fig. 2 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for an updated systematic review of the Smoking and Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease risk-outcome pair.

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

Extended Data Fig. 3 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for an updated systematic review of the Smoking and Diabetes mellitus type 2 risk- outcome pair.

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and type 2 diabetes conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

Extended Data Fig. 4 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for an updated systematic review of the Smoking and Breast cancer risk-outcome pair.

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and breast cancer conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

Extended Data Fig. 5 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for an updated systematic review of the Smoking and Prostate cancer risk-outcome pair.

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and prostate cancer conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

Extended Data Fig. 6 Smoking and Breast Cancer.

a , log-relative risk function. b , relative risk function. c , A modified funnel plot showing the residuals (relative to 0) on the x-axis and the estimated standard deviation (SD) that includes reported SD and between-study heterogeneity on the y-axis.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Information 1: Data source identification and assessment. Supplementary Information 2: Data inputs. Supplementary Information 3: Study quality and bias assessment. Supplementary Information 4: The dose–response RR curves and their 95% UIs for all smoking–outcome pairs. Supplementary Information 5: Supplementary methods. Supplementary Information 6: Sensitivity analysis. Supplementary Information 7: Binary smoking–outcome pair. Supplementary Information 8: Risk curve details. Supplementary Information 9: GATHER and PRISMA checklists.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Dai, X., Gil, G.F., Reitsma, M.B. et al. Health effects associated with smoking: a Burden of Proof study. Nat Med 28 , 2045–2055 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01978-x

Download citation

Received : 11 April 2022

Accepted : 28 July 2022

Published : 10 October 2022

Issue Date : October 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01978-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

• Gabriela F. Gil
• Jason A. Anderson
• Emmanuela Gakidou

Nature Communications (2024)

• Luisa S. Flor

Nature Medicine (2024)

Metabolic profiling of smoking, associations with type 2 diabetes and interaction with genetic susceptibility

• Sofia Carlsson

European Journal of Epidemiology (2024)

Global burden of prostate cancer attributable to smoking among males in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019

• Hanfei Zhang
• Dingping Huang
• Daqing Hong

BMC Cancer (2023)

Reply to: Concerns about the Burden of Proof studies

• Susan A. McLaughlin
• Christopher J. L. Murray

Nature Medicine (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking

Smoking and death, smoking and increased health risks, smoking and cardiovascular disease, smoking and respiratory disease, smoking and cancer, smoking and other health risks, quitting and reduced risks.

Cigarette smoking harms nearly every organ of the body, causes many diseases, and reduces the health of smokers in general. 1,2

Quitting smoking lowers your risk for smoking-related diseases and can add years to your life. 1,2

Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. 1

• Cigarette smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths each year in the United States. This is nearly one in five deaths. 1,2,3
• Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
• Illegal drug use
• Alcohol use
• Motor vehicle injuries
• Firearm-related incidents
• More than 10 times as many U.S. citizens have died prematurely from cigarette smoking than have died in all the wars fought by the United States. 1
• Smoking causes about 90% (or 9 out of 10) of all lung cancer deaths. 1,2  More women die from lung cancer each year than from breast cancer. 5
• Smoking causes about 80% (or 8 out of 10) of all deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). 1
• Cigarette smoking increases risk for death from all causes in men and women. 1
• The risk of dying from cigarette smoking has increased over the last 50 years in the U.S. 1

Smokers are more likely than nonsmokers to develop heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer. 1

• For coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times 1,6
• For stroke by 2 to 4 times 1
• Of men developing lung cancer by 25 times 1
• Of women developing lung cancer by 25.7 times 1
• Smoking causes diminished overall health, increased absenteeism from work, and increased health care utilization and cost. 1

Smokers are at greater risk for diseases that affect the heart and blood vessels (cardiovascular disease). 1,2

• Smoking causes stroke and coronary heart disease, which are among the leading causes of death in the United States. 1,3
• Even people who smoke fewer than five cigarettes a day can have early signs of cardiovascular disease. 1
• Smoking damages blood vessels and can make them thicken and grow narrower. This makes your heart beat faster and your blood pressure go up. Clots can also form. 1,2
• A clot blocks the blood flow to part of your brain;
• A blood vessel in or around your brain bursts. 1,2
• Blockages caused by smoking can also reduce blood flow to your legs and skin. 1,2

Smoking can cause lung disease by damaging your airways and the small air sacs (alveoli) found in your lungs. 1,2

• Lung diseases caused by smoking include COPD, which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. 1,2
• Cigarette smoking causes most cases of lung cancer. 1,2
• If you have asthma, tobacco smoke can trigger an attack or make an attack worse. 1,2
• Smokers are 12 to 13 times more likely to die from COPD than nonsmokers. 1

Smoking can cause cancer almost anywhere in your body: 1,2

• Blood (acute myeloid leukemia)
• Colon and rectum (colorectal)
• Kidney and ureter
• Oropharynx (includes parts of the throat, tongue, soft palate, and the tonsils)
• Trachea, bronchus, and lung

Smoking also increases the risk of dying from cancer and other diseases in cancer patients and survivors. 1

If nobody smoked, one of every three cancer deaths in the United States would not happen. 1,2

Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body and affects a person’s overall health. 1,2

• Preterm (early) delivery
• Stillbirth (death of the baby before birth)
• Low birth weight
• Sudden infant death syndrome (known as SIDS or crib death)
• Ectopic pregnancy
• Orofacial clefts in infants
• Smoking can also affect men’s sperm, which can reduce fertility and also increase risks for birth defects and miscarriage. 2
• Women past childbearing years who smoke have weaker bones than women who never smoked. They are also at greater risk for broken bones.
• Smoking affects the health of your teeth and gums and can cause tooth loss. 1
• Smoking can increase your risk for cataracts (clouding of the eye’s lens that makes it hard for you to see). It can also cause age-related macular degeneration (AMD). AMD is damage to a small spot near the center of the retina, the part of the eye needed for central vision. 1
• Smoking is a cause of type 2 diabetes mellitus and can make it harder to control. The risk of developing diabetes is 30–40% higher for active smokers than nonsmokers. 1,2
• Smoking causes general adverse effects on the body, including inflammation and decreased immune function. 1
• Smoking is a cause of rheumatoid arthritis. 1
• Quitting smoking is one of the most important actions people can take to improve their health. This is true regardless of their age or how long they have been smoking. Visit the Benefits of Quitting  page for more information about how quitting smoking can improve your health.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General . Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014 [accessed 2017 Apr 20].
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: What It Means to You . Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2010 [accessed 2017 Apr 20].
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. QuickStats: Number of Deaths from 10 Leading Causes—National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2010 . Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2013:62(08);155. [accessed 2017 Apr 20].
• Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual Causes of Death in the United States . JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 2004;291(10):1238–45 [cited 2017 Apr 20].
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Women and Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General . Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General, 2001 [accessed 2017 Apr 20].
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General . Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1989 [accessed 2017 Apr 20].

To receive email updates about Smoking & Tobacco Use, enter your email address:

• Tips From Former Smokers ®
• Division of Cancer Prevention and Control
• Lung Cancer
• National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program
• Division of Reproductive Health

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

Teenage Smoking Essay: Writing Guide & Smoking Essay Topics

Smoking can be viewed as one of the trendy habits. Numerous teenagers try it since they think that it is cool or can help them socialize. Often students start smoking due to stress or mental illnesses. But is it okay?

Our specialists will write a custom essay specially for you!

Educators tend to give different written assignments, which may disclose this topic. If you have to develop a teenage smoking essay, you should learn the effects and harm that this habit causes.

That’s when our Custom-writing.org writers can help you!In the article, you’ll see how to deal with writing about smoking students. We’ve gathered tips for different paper types and prompts that can inspire you to start. In the end, you’ll find some smoking essay topics as well.

• 🚬 Argumentative
• 📈 Cause and Effect
• 🚭 Persuasive
• 🔥 Topics & Prompts

🔗 References

✍️ how to write a teenage smoking essay.

Just like any other academic paper, a teen smoking essay should be organized according to its type. You are probably familiar with the following writing ones:

• argumentative essay;
• cause and effect essay;
• persuasive essay.

Below, you can find insightful tips on how to compose a teenage smoking essay, fulfilling the requirements of each type.

🚬 Argumentative Essay on Smoking

An argumentative essay on teenage smoking should give the reader a rational discussion of a specific issue. The ideas are expected to be well-structured and solidified with valid evidence.

Just in 1 hour! We will write you a plagiarism-free paper in hardly more than 1 hour

Below, you can find the most useful tips for writing an argumentative teen smoking essay. Don’t hesitate to use them!

• Catch the reader’s attention. In the introduction, explain the significance and relatability of the chosen issue. Provide general background and make the reader continue exploring your essay through attention-grabbing elements (impressive statistics, personal stories, etc.).
• Express your position clearly. Compose a concise thesis statement , so the reader can quickly get your position. Be as precise as possible! For example, your thesis might look like this: Teenage smoking leads to poor health, psychological and social issues.
• The most vivid adverse ramification of teenage smoking is the development of health problems like heart or lung diseases and cancer.
• Another disruptive effect of smoking at a young age is the risk of psychological disorders such as anxiety or depression.
• The last negative consequence of teenage smoking is the conflict with social norms.
• Support your arguments. Your ideas will become stronger if you support them with proof from other sources. But be careful here! Use only reliable sources (academic journals, scholarly articles, books, etc.).
• Finish your essay dynamically. In your essay conclusion, restate your thesis statement and synthesize all of your arguments. Motivate your readers on further investigation of your topic. To make your paper even more impressive, finish it with the final memorable thought that would be stuck in your readers’ minds.

📈 Cause and Effect Essay on Smoking

A cause and effect of the teenage smoking essay should answer two questions:

• Why do teenagers smoke? (Causes).
• What are the consequences of teenage smoking? (Effects).

How to create an excellent cause and effect paper? You can start by checking successful teen smoking essay examples . Then, learn some useful tips here:

• Get an idea. The first step of creating a causes effects of teenage smoking essay is brainstorming topics. Think of the common reasons for teens smoking and analyze the possible outcomes. Here are some ideas for you:
• Outline your paper. This step helps structure your ideas properly. Create a well-organized plan and add there all the proof and examples. Make sure that everything is logical, and start writing your teenage smoking essay.
• Form a clear thesis. In your thesis statement, state your position and introduce the chosen cause and effect of smoking. Here is an example of the thesis for this type of smoking among teenagers essay: Caused by peer pressure, smoking negatively affects teenagers’ health and appearance.
• The key cause of teenage nicotine addiction is peer pressure and the fear of becoming an outsider among the friends-smokers.
• One of the detrimental effects of cigarettes on teenagers is health problems.
• Another adverse consequence of teenage smoking is negative changes in appearance .
• Polish your piece of writing. After you finished your first draft, revise and edit your essay. Ensure the absence of grammar and punctuation mistakes and double-check if your paper is coherent.

🚭 Persuasive Essay on Smoking

A persuasive essay about teenage smoking resembles an argumentative one but has a different purpose. Here, you have to convince your reader in your opinion, using evidence and facts. Moreover, in some papers, you have to call your reader to action. For example, to quit or ban smoking . So, see how to do so:

• Grab the reader’s attention. To do so, you should know your audience and their preferences. Start your smoking essay by proving to the reader your credibility and the significance of your topic. For example, if you are writing about smoking students, introduce the shocking statistics at the beginning of your paper and convince them to stop smoking.
• Show your empathy. An emotional appeal is a powerful tool for gaining the readers’ trust and influencing their opinions. Demonstrate that you understand their emotions and, at the same time, convince them to change their beliefs. To make it more clear, see an example: Although smoking might help teenagers be on the same wavelength as their friends, nicotine has a detrimental effect on health and leads to cancer development.
• Include rhetoric questions. This is a useful persuasive trick that makes readers change their minds. For instance, in your smoking essay, you may ask this question: Smoking helps me to relieve stress, but will I be able to overcome lung cancer later?
• Highlight your position. In a persuasive essay, you should be incredibly convincing. So, don’t be afraid of exaggeration or even repeating yourself. These tricks may help you to deliver your message to the reader more quickly and effectively.

You have a lot of ways of creating fantastic teen smoking essays. You should just turn around and gather material. Sometimes it lies near your foot.

Receive a plagiarism-free paper tailored to your instructions. Cut 20% off your first order!

To smoke or not to smoke? – This is the question! You should decide what is for you: To be yourself or follow the fashion! It is not difficult to do!

🔥 Smoking Essay Topics

Do you know what the critical secret of a successful essay is? A well-chosen topic!

If you find something you are passionate about, your essay writing process will be much easier. So, take a look at our smoking essay topics. Select one of them or use some to come up with your idea.

• Smoking among teenagers : an exaggerated problem or a real threat to the generation?
• The influence of nicotine on teenagers’ brain activity.
• How smoking parents develop smoking habits in their children.
• Vaping : a healthier alternative to regular cigarettes or just another dangerous teenagers’ passion?
• Is smoking still a problem among teenagers today – an essay to highlight the issue of cigarette addiction.
• The danger of smoking for immature teenagers’ organisms.
• If smoking in public places was banned , teenagers would be predisposed to cigarettes less.
• Social problems caused by teenage smoking .
• The role of parents in dealing with teenage cigarette addiction.
• Useful tips to stop smoking .
• Why teenagers are influenced by peer pressure , and how to overcome it.
• Teenage smoking: a matter of real nicotine addiction or a case of psychological processes inside immature minds?
• The danger of smoking and second-hand smoke .
• Is e-cigarette a threat or solution?
• Analyze the connection between vaping and dental health .
• Is it necessary to ban cigarette manufacturers?
• Is it possible to prevent teenagers from smoking using anti-smoking posters ?
• What are the best ways to persuade young adults to stop smoking?
• Discuss the possibility of the global ban on tobacco and its potential outcomes.
• Pros and cons of anti-smoking adverts.
• Explore the connection between smoking cessation and depression .
• Describe the link between smoking and heart disease .
• Explain how smoking cessation can improve teenagers’ life.
• How to reduce smoking among youth .
• What are the different types of cigarette smokers?
• Analyze the challenges of each stage of smoking cessation and how to overcome them.
• Is smoking an effective method of weight control?
• Discuss the impact of smoke on health of primary and secondary smokers .
• Do you support the idea of lowering the smoking age in the USA ?
• Effect of tobacco use on our body.
• Explore the efficiency of the acupuncture method for smoking cessation .
• Will the complete prohibition of smoking in cities help to preserve teenagers’ health?
• Examine how smoking in movies influences teenagers’ desire to start smoking.
• Are nicotine replacement medications necessary for successful smoking cessation?
• Reasons to prohibit tobacco products and cigarettes.
• Describe the reasons that prevent teenagers from smoking cessation .
• Analyze the public image of smoking in the USA.
• Discuss the issues connected with the smoking ban .
• Antismoking ads and their influence on youth smoking prevalence .
• What factors determine the success of anti-smoking persuasive campaigns among teenagers?
• Explore the impact of smoking on teenagers’ physical and mental health.
• What can you do to motivate your teenage friend to quit smoking?
• Why do teenagers start smoking ?
• Analyze the rates of tobacco smoking among adolescents.
• Compare the peculiarities of smoking cessation methods and motivation for teenagers and adolescents.
• Examine whether raising cigarette pricing is an effective way to lower smoking rates.

Teenage Smoking Essay Prompts

Here are some writing prompts that you can use for your smoking essay: 

• What does the data on smoking in different countries say? Compare the age limitations for smoking, attitude to smoking in America and Europe, for example. Where the situation is worst, whether the government tries to fight against this, etc.
• The distribution of cigarettes and other types of tobacco . Is it okay that tobacco machines are available all over the world (especially in Europe)? Any child can buy a cigarette and start smoking. You could investigate this problem in your teen smoking essays.
• Opinion essay: present your ideas and attitude to smoking . Explain whether you like to see people smoking around you, or you cannot stand when people are gazing at you while you are smoking.
• How does media influence teens’ decision-making? When teenagers see their favorite characters getting pleasure from smoking, they may want to try it. Is it a reason to start? In what other ways does mass media affect the problem?

Effects of Teenage Smoking Essay Prompt

Smoking among teenagers is a serious problem that has long-term consequences for their physical and mental health. In your essay, you can dwell on the following ideas:

• Analyze the health consequences of tobacco use among young people. In your paper, you can study how tobacco affects youths’ health. Focus on the most widespread problems, such as heart and lung diseases, cancer risk, and others.
• Estimate the role of smoking in promoting antisocial behavior among teenagers . Does smoking really encourage aggression and vandalism among teenagers? Use psychological theories and recent research findings to prove your point.
• Explain why teenage smoking is associated with an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and urges. To prove your point, you may discuss how nicotine causes depression and neurotransmitter imbalances. Make sure to illustrate your essay with relevant studies and statistical data.
• Investigate the economic and social consequences of smoking among young people. Besides high cigarette prices, you can consider lost productivity and healthcare costs. Additionally, write about social issues, such as stigmatization and reduced life opportunities.

Smoking in School Essay Prompt

Despite the implementation of smoke-free policies, a large percentage of teenagers start smoking during their school years. You can write an essay advocating for more effective initiatives to address not only students’ access to cigarettes but also the core causes of teen smoking.

Get an originally-written paper according to your instructions!

Check out some more ideas for your “Smoking in School” essay:

• Explain why educators should prohibit smoking on school grounds. Smoking is a dangerous habit that damages students’ health and the overall school environment. Even secondhand smoke exposure has harmful consequences. Your essay could provide evidence that proves the effectiveness of smoke-free policies in reducing teenage smoking rates and improving general well-being.
• Analyze the effectiveness of school smoking policies in your educational institution. What smoking policies are accepted in your school? Do students comply with them? What disciplinary measures are used? Use student surveys and disciplinary records to prove the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of current policies.
• Describe the issue of smoking in schools in your country. Answer the questions: how widespread is this problem? How does it manifest itself? What causes smoking in schools, and how do schools fight it?
• Investigate the role of schools in reducing youth smoking. How can schools prevent and reduce smoking among students? Are their programs and campaigns effective? What can families and communities do to support schools in their efforts? Study these questions in your essay.

Peer Pressure Smoking Essay Prompt

Peer pressure is a common reason why teenagers start smoking. Friends, romantic attachments, or other social circles — all have significant effects on teens’ smoking intentions and possible tobacco addiction.

Here are some practical ideas that can help you highlight the role of peer pressure in teenage smoking :

• Analyze why adolescents tend to be powerful in influencing their friends to start smoking. Peer pressure often impacts teenagers’ decisions more than parents’ disapproval. To explain this phenomenon, you can examine theories like social contagion and recent studies on peer dynamics.
• Provide your own experience of resisting peer pressure to smoke. Have you ever faced peer pressure inducing you to smoke? What helped you to withstand? Try to share some advice for students in a similar situation.
• Investigate how social media can amplify peer pressure through online portrayals of smoking as glamorous. We recommend studying images, videos, advertisements, and influencers that depict smoking as stylish and sophisticated. What can be done to prevent smoking glamorization on social media?
• Estimate the role of peers in normalizing smoking behavior. Peer influence is more than just direct pressure. Your essay could explain how factors like observational learning and group identity induce teenagers to smoke.

Causes of Smoking Essay Prompt

There are many reasons why people start smoking, ranging from simple curiosity to complicated social and psychological factors, including anxiety, low self-esteem, and domestic violence.

Check out several ideas for an essay about the causes of smoking:

• Analyze tobacco or e-cigarette ads that emphasize weight control benefits and explain how these ads encourage teenagers to smoke. Your paper may discuss how tobacco and e-cigarette companies make use of teenagers’ insecurities and social norms regarding body image. Include studies that prove the impact of advertising on youths’ behavior.
• Explore why the rising popularity of fashionable electronic “vaping” devices is one of the key causes of teen smoking. Why is vaping so popular among teenagers? How does it appeal to youths’ preferences and lifestyles? What role do sleek design and social media influence play in the devices’ popularity? Answer the questions in your paper.
• Describe your or your friend’s experience that forced you to try cigarettes. Have you or your friend ever tried smoking? Share your story in your essay. Reflect on the circumstances and emotions involved. What conclusions did you make from the experience?

Smoking Is Bad for Health Essay Prompt

Cigarette smoking impacts nearly every organ in the body, causes a variety of diseases, and worsens smokers’ overall health.

In your essay, you can expand on the following ideas to show the severe consequences of smoking on human well-being:

• Analyze why cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Here, you can examine factors like addiction and chronic diseases cigarettes provoke. Add statistical data and emphasize the preventable nature of smoking-related illnesses and deaths.
• Examine passive smoking as a serious threat to health, especially for children, pregnant women, and people with chronic diseases. Your essay could analyze research and case studies proving that secondhand smoke is as dangerous to human health as smoking itself. Underline its harm to vulnerable populations, such as children, pregnant women, and people with chronic diseases.
• Investigate the impact of cigarettes on mental health, including their contribution to the development of depression and anxiety. In this paper, you can examine nicotine’s effect on neurotransmitters involved in mood regulation, such as dopamine and serotonin. Support your point with evidence from peer-reviewed studies.
• Research the possible diseases that smoking can provoke, including cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory illnesses. How does smoking contribute to the development and progress of these diseases? Use epidemiological data and medical research to answer this question.

Is Smoking Still a Problem Among Teenagers: Argumentative Essay Prompt

According to the CDC, in 2023, 1 out of every 100 middle school students and nearly 2 out of every 100 high school students had smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days . Public health experts are especially concerned about e-cigarettes since flavorings in tobacco products can make cigarettes more appealing to teenagers.

To evaluate the current situation with smoking among teens, dwell on the following ideas in your essay:

• Analyze your country’s or world’s statistics on teen smoking in recent decades. Do you see any changes? Why did they happen? What do these changes mean in terms of public health? Examine these questions in your essay.
• Describe your own observations of teenagers’ smoking habits. Contrast what you witnessed in the past with the current situation. Do you think teenagers’ smoking habits changed? What makes you think so? Provide real-life examples to back up your opinion.
• Examine data on e-cigarette use among teenagers. Your essay could compare ordinary cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use trends among teenagers. Which type prevails, and why? What impact does it have on teenagers’ health? What can be done to lower smoking and vaping rates among teenagers?

Thanks for reading till the end! Make sure to leave your opinion about the article below. Send it to your friends who may need our tips.

You might also be interested in:

• Family Values Essay: How to Write, Essay Topics & Examples
• Impressive Essay on Being Late: Hurry Up with Exciting Ideas
• Essay about Cars: Tips, Ideas, and Best Car Topics to Write about
• Subjective Essay: Example, How to Write and Topics
• How to Write an Opinion Essay: an Ultimate Guide + Examples
• How to Write an Argumentative Essay Step by Step: Virginia Kearney, Owlcation, Education
• Teen Smoking Essay: Bartleby
• Persuasive Essay Outline: Houston Community College System
• Definition and Examples of Cause and Effect in Essays: Richard Nordquist, ThoughtCo
• Teenage Smoking Essay: Cram
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

Children have always been apprentices and servants all over human history. However, the Industrial Revolution increased the use of child labor in the world. It became a global problem that is relevant even today when such employment is illegal.

Nowadays, knowing several foreign languages is no longer surprising. For example, learning French is common for English-speaking countries. So, getting an assignment on this subject won’t be a surprise for a student.

Dissertation critique writing develops the students’ critical and logical thinking abilities. When composing, the students learn to analyze the works conducted by other researchers. To critique a dissertation, you should: Thoroughly read the paper.Take notes and summarize the text (you can even try and use auto summarizer for that).Interpret and...

So, you need to accomplish your discursive essay writing. The typical questions most students ask are: How do you write it? What is discursive essay? A discursive essay is an academic paper that involves a discussion on a particular topic. It is usually assigned to college students. You may be...

How to write a narrative essay? To do that, you need to know what a narrative essay is. It is an academic text usually written as a story and containing all the usual elements of a story. Narrative essays are often personal, experiential, and creative. Still, they should be made...

So, you can’t wait to get into college and join a fraternity, sorority, or student union. Well, we have some incredibly useful tips and helpful information for college admission essay writing! Remember: getting into college takes more than money. And outstanding essays get you great college scholarships!

It’s not hard to see why Americanism is one of the most popular essay topics. The concept of Americanism is in the center of the US identity. Writing an essay about it is an excellent way to find out more about this great country.

An art critique paper involves a comprehensive analysis and assessment of an artwork. Though this looks a bit complicated, the task doesn’t require a lot of time if you have sufficient critique writing skills. It’s an interesting assignment for students of art colleges as well as high schoolers. All you...

An article review is an academic assignment that invites you to study a piece of academic research closely. Then, you should present its summary and critically evaluate it using the knowledge you’ve gained in class and during your independent study. If you get such a task at college or university,...

Short essays answer a specific question on the subject. They usually are anywhere between 250 words and 750 words long. A paper with less than 250 words isn’t considered a finished text, so it doesn’t fall under the category of a short essay. Essays of such format are required for...

When you hear the phrase “spiritual leadership,” you probably think it’s only associated with religion. But did you know that this form of leadership can also be found in business? The book Spiritual Leadership: Moving People on to God’s Agenda by Henry and Richard Blackaby is a good starting point...

High school and college students often face challenges when crafting a compare-and-contrast essay. A well-written paper of this kind needs to be structured appropriately to earn you good grades. Knowing how to organize your ideas allows you to present your ideas in a coherent and logical manner This article by...

Thank you so much this helped me a lot with an essay I had to do😁

Glad to hear that! Thank you for your feedback!

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Nature Portfolio

Health effects associated with smoking: a Burden of Proof study

Xiaochen dai.

1 Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA

2 Department of Health Metrics Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA

Gabriela F. Gil

Marissa b. reitsma, noah s. ahmad, jason a. anderson, catherine bisignano, sinclair carr, rachel feldman, simon i. hay, vincent iannucci, hilary r. lawlor, matthew j. malloy, laurie b. marczak, susan a. mclaughlin, larissa morikawa, erin c. mullany, sneha i. nicholson, erin m. o’connell, chukwuma okereke, reed j. d. sorensen, joanna whisnant, aleksandr y. aravkin.

3 Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA

Christopher J. L. Murray

Emmanuela gakidou, associated data.

The findings from the present study are supported by data available in the published literature. Data sources and citations for each risk–outcome pair can be downloaded using the ‘download’ button on each risk curve page currently available at https://vizhub.healthdata.org/burden-of-proof . Study characteristics and citations for all input data used in the analyses are also provided in Supplementary Table 3 , and Supplementary Table 2 provides a template of the data collection form.

All code used for these analyses is publicly available online ( https://github.com/ihmeuw-msca/burden-of-proof ).

As a leading behavioral risk factor for numerous health outcomes, smoking is a major ongoing public health challenge. Although evidence on the health effects of smoking has been widely reported, few attempts have evaluated the dose–response relationship between smoking and a diverse range of health outcomes systematically and comprehensively. In the present study, we re-estimated the dose–response relationships between current smoking and 36 health outcomes by conducting systematic reviews up to 31 May 2022, employing a meta-analytic method that incorporates between-study heterogeneity into estimates of uncertainty. Among the 36 selected outcomes, 8 had strong-to-very-strong evidence of an association with smoking, 21 had weak-to-moderate evidence of association and 7 had no evidence of association. By overcoming many of the limitations of traditional meta-analyses, our approach provides comprehensive, up-to-date and easy-to-use estimates of the evidence on the health effects of smoking. These estimates provide important information for tobacco control advocates, policy makers, researchers, physicians, smokers and the public.

A meta-analysis using the Burden of proof method reported consistent evidence supporting harmful associations between smoking and 28 different health outcomes.

Among both the public and the health experts, smoking is recognized as a major behavioral risk factor with a leading attributable health burden worldwide. The health risks of smoking were clearly outlined in a canonical study of disease rates (including lung cancer) and smoking habits in British doctors in 1950 and have been further elaborated in detail over the following seven decades 1 , 2 . In 2005, evidence of the health consequences of smoking galvanized the adoption of the first World Health Organization (WHO) treaty, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, in an attempt to drive reductions in global tobacco use and second-hand smoke exposure 3 . However, as of 2020, an estimated 1.18 billion individuals globally were current smokers and 7 million deaths and 177 million disability-adjusted life-years were attributed to smoking, reflecting a persistent public health challenge 4 . Quantifying the relationship between smoking and various important health outcomes—in particular, highlighting any significant dose–response relationships—is crucial to understanding the attributable health risk experienced by these individuals and informing responsive public policy.

Existing literature on the relationship between smoking and specific health outcomes is prolific, including meta-analyses, cohort studies and case–control studies analyzing the risk of outcomes such as lung cancer 5 – 7 , chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 8 – 10 and ischemic heart disease 11 – 14 due to smoking. There are few if any attempts, however, to systematically and comprehensively evaluate the landscape of evidence on smoking risk across a diverse range of health outcomes, with most current research focusing on risk or attributable burden of smoking for a specific condition 7 , 15 , thereby missing the opportunity to provide a comprehensive picture of the health risk experienced by smokers. Furthermore, although evidence surrounding specific health outcomes, such as lung cancer, has generated widespread consensus, findings about the attributable risk of other outcomes are much more heterogeneous and inconclusive 16 – 18 . These studies also vary in their risk definitions, with many comparing dichotomous exposure measures of ever smokers versus nonsmokers 19 , 20 . Others examine the distinct risks of current smokers and former smokers compared with never smokers 21 – 23 . Among the studies that do analyze dose–response relationships, there is large variation in the units and dose categories used in reporting their findings (for example, the use of pack-years or cigarettes per day) 24 , 25 , which complicates the comparability and consolidation of evidence. This, in turn, can obscure data that could inform personal health choices, public health practices and policy measures. Guidance on the health risks of smoking, such as the Surgeon General’s Reports on smoking 26 , 27 , is often based on experts’ evaluation of heterogenous evidence, which, although extremely useful and well suited to carefully consider nuances in the evidence, is fundamentally subjective.

The present study, as part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Risk Factors, and Injuries Study (GBD) 2020, re-estimated the continuous dose–response relationships (the mean risk functions and associated uncertainty estimates) between current smoking and 36 health outcomes (Supplementary Table 1 ) by identifying input studies using a systematic review approach and employing a meta-analytic method 28 . The 36 health outcomes that were selected based on existing evidence of a relationship included 16 cancers (lung cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, leukemia, liver cancer, laryngeal cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, lip and oral cavity cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, other pharynx cancer (excluding nasopharynx cancer), pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer and prostate cancer), 5 cardiovascular diseases (CVDs: ischemic heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation and flutter, aortic aneurysm and peripheral artery disease) and 15 other diseases (COPD, lower respiratory tract infections, tuberculosis, asthma, type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, cataracts, gallbladder diseases, low back pain, peptic ulcer disease, rheumatoid arthritis, macular degeneration and fractures). Definitions of the outcomes are described in Supplementary Table 1 . We conducted a separate systematic review for each risk–outcome pair with the exception of cancers, which were done together in a single systematic review. This approach allowed us to systematically identify all relevant studies indexed in PubMed up to 31 May 2022, and we extracted relevant data on risk of smoking, including study characteristics, following a pre-specified template (Supplementary Table 2 ). The meta-analytic tool overcomes many of the limitations of traditional meta-analyses by incorporating between-study heterogeneity into the uncertainty of risk estimates, accounting for small numbers of studies, relaxing the assumption of log(linearity) applied to the risk functions, handling differences in exposure ranges between comparison groups, and systematically testing and adjusting for bias due to study designs and characteristics. We then estimated the burden-of-proof risk function (BPRF) for each risk–outcome pair, as proposed by Zheng et al. 29 ; the BPRF is a conservative risk function defined as the 5th quantile curve (for harmful risks) that reflects the smallest harmful effect at each level of exposure consistent with the available evidence. Given all available data for each outcome, the risk of smoking is at least as harmful as the BPRF indicates.

We used the BPRF for each risk–outcome pair to calculate risk–outcome scores (ROSs) and categorize the strength of evidence for the association between smoking and each health outcome using a star rating from 1 to 5. The interpretation of the star ratings is as follows: 1 star (*) indicates no evidence of association; 2 stars (**) correspond to a 0–15% increase in risk across average range of exposures for harmful risks; 3 stars (***) represent a 15–50% increase in risk; 4 stars (****) refer to >50–85% increase in risk; and 5 stars (*****) equal >85% increase in risk. The thresholds for each star rating were developed in consultation with collaborators and other stakeholders.

The increasing disease burden attributable to current smoking, particularly in low- and middle-income countries 4 , demonstrates the relevance of the present study, which quantifies the strength of the evidence using an objective, quantitative, comprehensive and comparative framework. Findings from the present study can be used to support policy makers in making informed smoking recommendations and regulations focusing on the associations for which the evidence is strongest (that is, the 4- and 5-star associations). However, associations with a lower star rating cannot be ignored, especially when the outcome has high prevalence or severity. A summary of the main findings, limitations and policy implications of the study is presented in Table ​ Table1 1 .

Policy summary

We evaluated the mean risk functions and the BPRFs for 36 health outcomes that are associated with current smoking 30 (Table ​ (Table2). 2 ). Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines 31 for each of our systematic reviews, we identified studies reporting relative risk (RR) of incidence or mortality from each of the 36 selected outcomes for smokers compared with nonsmokers. We reviewed 21,108 records, which were identified to have been published between 1 May 2018 and 31 May 2022; this represents the most recent time period since the last systematic review of the available evidence for the GBD at the time of publication. The meta-analyses reported in the present study for each of the 36 health outcomes are based on evidence from a total of 793 studies published between 1970 and 2022 (Extended Data Fig. ​ Fig.1 1 – 5 and Supplementary Information 1.5 show the PRISMA diagrams for each outcome). Only prospective cohort and case–control studies were included for estimating dose–response risk curves, but cross-sectional studies were also included for estimating the age pattern of smoking risk on cardiovascular and circulatory disease (CVD) outcomes. Details on each, including the study’s design, data sources, number of participants, length of follow-up, confounders adjusted for in the input data and bias covariates included in the dose–response risk model, can be found in Supplementary Information 2 and 3 . The theoretical minimum risk exposure level used for current smoking was never smoking or zero 30 .

Strength of the evidence for the relationship between current smoking and the 36 health outcomes analyzed

The ROS represents the signed value of the log(BPRF) averaged across the 15th–85th percentiles of exposure. The BPRF corresponds to the lower (if harmful) or higher (if protective) UI—inclusive of between-study heterogeneity—for each risk–outcome pair’s RR curve. ROSs are directly comparable across outcomes and each risk–outcome pair receives an ROS based on the final formulation of the risk curve. For Parkinson’s disease, the ROS reflects a protective effect of smoking, whereas for the other outcomes it reflects a harmful effect. Negative ROSs indicate that a conservative interpretation of the available evidence suggests that there may be no association between risk and outcome. For ease of interpretation, we have transformed the ROS and BPRF into a star rating (1–5), with a higher rating representing a larger effect and stronger evidence. Average BPRF, which is the exponential ROS for harmful effects (or exponential negative ROS for protective effects), is the conservative exposure-averaged RR consistent with all the available data. Average increased risk, which equates to (average BPRF − 1) × 100% for harmful effects or (1 − average BPRF) × 100% for protective effects, refers to the percentage increase in RR based on a conservative interpretation of the evidence. For harmful risks, this percentage is positive and, for protective risks, negative, indicating the percentage decrease in RR. The average increased risk is not applicable for pairs with negative ROSs. N/A, not available; Pub., Publication; ref., reference.

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and lung cancer conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and prostate cancer conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

Five-star associations

When the most conservative interpretation of the evidence, that is, the BPRF, suggests that the average exposure (15th–85th percentiles of exposure) of smoking increases the risk of a health outcome by >85% (that is, ROS > 0.62), smoking and that outcome are categorized as a 5-star pair. Among the 36 outcomes, there are 5 that have a 5-star association with current smoking: laryngeal cancer (375% increase in risk based on the BPRF, 1.56 ROS), aortic aneurysm (150%, 0.92), peripheral artery disease (137%, 0.86), lung cancer (107%, 0.73) and other pharynx cancer (excluding nasopharynx cancer) (92%, 0.65).

Results for all 5-star risk–outcome pairs are available in Table ​ Table2 2 and Supplementary Information 4.1 . In the present study, we provide detailed results for one example 5-star association: current smoking and lung cancer. We extracted 371 observations from 25 prospective cohort studies and 53 case–control studies across 25 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 5 , 6 , 32 – 107 . Exposure ranged from 1 pack-year to >112 pack-years, with the 85th percentile of exposure being 50.88 pack-years (Fig. ​ (Fig.1a 1a ).

a , The log(RR) function. b , RR function. c , A modified funnel plot showing the residuals (relative to 0) on the x axis and the estimated s.d. that includes reported s.d. and between-study heterogeneity on the y axis.

We found a very strong and significant harmful relationship between pack-years of current smoking and the RR of lung cancer (Fig. ​ (Fig.1b). 1b ). The mean RR of lung cancer at 20 pack-years of smoking was 5.11 (95% uncertainty interval (UI) inclusive of between-study heterogeneity = 1.84–14.99). At 50.88 pack-years (85th percentile of exposure), the mean RR of lung cancer was 13.42 (2.63–74.59). See Table ​ Table2 2 for mean RRs at other exposure levels. The BPRF, which represents the most conservative interpretation of the evidence (Fig. ​ (Fig.1a), 1a ), suggests that smoking in the 15th–85th percentiles of exposure increases the risk of lung cancer by an average of 107%, yielding an ROS of 0.73.

The relationship between pack-years of current smoking and RR of lung cancer is nonlinear, with diminishing impact of further pack-years of smoking, particularly for middle-to-high exposure levels (Fig. ​ (Fig.1b). 1b ). To reduce the effect of bias, we adjusted observations that did not account for more than five confounders, including age and sex, because they were the significant bias covariates identified by the bias covariate selection algorithm 29 (Supplementary Table 7 ). The reported RRs across studies were very heterogeneous. Our meta-analytic method, which accounts for the reported uncertainty in both the data and between-study heterogeneity, fit the data and covered the estimated residuals well (Fig. ​ (Fig.1c). 1c ). After trimming 10% of outliers, we still detected publication bias in the results for lung cancer. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for observed RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining 5-star pairs.

Four-star associations

When the BPRF suggests that the average exposure of smoking increases the risk of a health outcome by 50–85% (that is, ROS > 0.41–0.62), smoking is categorized as having a 4-star association with that outcome. We identified three outcomes with a 4-star association with smoking: COPD (72% increase in risk based on the BPRF, 0.54 ROS), lower respiratory tract infection (54%, 0.43) and pancreatic cancer (52%, 0.42).

In the present study, we provide detailed results for one example 4-star association: current smoking and COPD. We extracted 51 observations from 11 prospective cohort studies and 4 case–control studies across 36 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 6 , 8 – 10 , 78 , 108 – 116 . Exposure ranged from 1 pack-year to 100 pack-years, with the 85th percentile of exposure in the exposed group being 49.75 pack-years.

We found a strong and significant harmful relationship between pack-years of current smoking and RR of COPD (Fig. ​ (Fig.2b). 2b ). The mean RR of COPD at 20 pack-years was 3.17 (1.60–6.55; Table ​ Table2 2 reports RRs at other exposure levels). At the 85th percentile of exposure, the mean RR of COPD was 6.01 (2.08–18.58). The BPRF suggests that average smoking exposure raises the risk of COPD by an average of 72%, yielding an ROS of 0.54. The results for the other health outcomes that have an association with smoking rated as 4 stars are shown in Table ​ Table2 2 and Supplementary Information 4.2 .

a , The log(RR) function. b , RR function. c , A modified funnel plot showing the residuals (relative to 0) on th e x axis and the estimated s.d. that includes the reported s.d. and between-study heterogeneity on the y axis.

The relationship between smoking and COPD is nonlinear, with diminishing impact of further pack-years of current smoking on risk of COPD, particularly for middle-to-high exposure levels (Fig. ​ (Fig.2a). 2a ). To reduce the effect of bias, we adjusted observations that did not account for age and sex and/or were generated for individuals aged >65 years 116 , because they were the two significant bias covariates identified by the bias covariate selection algorithm (Supplementary Table 7 ). There was large heterogeneity in the reported RRs across studies, and our meta-analytic method fit the data and covered the estimated residuals well (Fig. ​ (Fig.2b). 2b ). Although we trimmed 10% of outliers, publication bias was still detected in the results for COPD. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for reported RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining health outcomes that have a 4-star association with smoking.

Three-star associations

When the BPRF suggests that the average exposure of smoking increases the risk of a health outcome by 15–50% (or, when protective, decreases the risk of an outcome by 13–34%; that is, ROS >0.14–0.41), the association between smoking and that outcome is categorized as having a 3-star rating. We identified 15 outcomes with a 3-star association: bladder cancer (40% increase in risk, 0.34 ROS); tuberculosis (31%, 0.27); esophageal cancer (29%, 0.26); cervical cancer, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis (each 23–24%, 0.21); lower back pain (22%, 0.20); ischemic heart disease (20%, 0.19); peptic ulcer and macular degeneration (each 19–20%, 0.18); Parkinson's disease (protective risk, 15% decrease in risk, 0.16); and stomach cancer, stroke, type 2 diabetes and cataracts (each 15–17%, 0.14–0.16).

We present the findings on smoking and type 2 diabetes as an example of a 3-star risk association. We extracted 102 observations from 24 prospective cohort studies and 4 case–control studies across 15 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 117 – 144 . The exposure ranged from 1 cigarette to 60 cigarettes smoked per day, with the 85th percentile of exposure in the exposed group being 26.25 cigarettes smoked per day.

We found a moderate and significant harmful relationship between cigarettes smoked per day and the RR of type 2 diabetes (Fig. ​ (Fig.3b). 3b ). The mean RR of type 2 diabetes at 20 cigarettes smoked per day was 1.49 (1.18–1.90; see Table ​ Table2 2 for other exposure levels). At the 85th percentile of exposure, the mean RR of type 2 diabetes was 1.54 (1.20–2.01). The BPRF suggests that average smoking exposure raises the risk of type 2 diabetes by an average of 16%, yielding an ROS of 0.15. See Table ​ Table2 2 and Supplementary Information 4.3 for results for the additional health outcomes with an association with smoking rated as 3 stars.

a , The log(RR) function. b , RR function. c , A modified funnel plot showing the residuals (relative to 0) on the x axis and the estimated s.d. that includes the reported s.d. and between-study heterogeneity on the y axis.

The relationship between smoking and type 2 diabetes is nonlinear, particularly for high exposure levels where the mean risk curve becomes flat (Fig. ​ (Fig.3a). 3a ). We adjusted observations that were generated in subpopulations, because it was the only significant bias covariate identified by the bias covariate selection algorithm (Supplementary Table 7 ). There was moderate heterogeneity in the observed RR data across studies and our meta-analytic method fit the data and covered the estimated residuals extremely well (Fig. 3b,c ). After trimming 10% of outliers, we still detected publication bias in the results for type 2 diabetes. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for observed RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining 3-star pairs.

Two-star associations

When the BPRF suggests that the average exposure of smoking increases the risk of an outcome by 0–15% (that is, ROS 0.0–0.14), the association between smoking and that outcome is categorized as a 2-star rating. We identified six 2-star outcomes: nasopharyngeal cancer (14% increase in risk, 0.13 ROS); Alzheimer’s and other dementia (10%, 0.09); gallbladder diseases and atrial fibrillation and flutter (each 6%, 0.06); lip and oral cavity cancer (5%, 0.05); and breast cancer (4%, 0.04).

We present the findings on smoking and breast cancer as an example of a 2-star association. We extracted 93 observations from 14 prospective cohort studies and 9 case–control studies across 14 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 84 , 87 , 145 – 165 . The exposure ranged from 1 cigarette to >76 cigarettes smoked per day, with the 85th percentile of exposure in the exposed group being 34.10 cigarettes smoked per day.

We found a weak but significant relationship between pack-years of current smoking and RR of breast cancer (Extended Data Fig. ​ Fig.6). 6 ). The mean RR of breast cancer at 20 pack-years was 1.17 (1.04–1.31; Table ​ Table2 2 reports other exposure levels). The BPRF suggests that average smoking exposure raises the risk of breast cancer by an average of 4%, yielding an ROS of 0.04. See Table ​ Table2 2 and Supplementary Information 4.4 for results on the additional health outcomes for which the association with smoking has been categorized as 2 stars.

a , log-relative risk function. b , relative risk function. c , A modified funnel plot showing the residuals (relative to 0) on the x-axis and the estimated standard deviation (SD) that includes reported SD and between-study heterogeneity on the y-axis.

The relationship between smoking and breast cancer is nonlinear, particularly for high exposure levels where the mean risk curve becomes flat (Extended Data Fig. ​ Fig.6a). 6a ). To reduce the effect of bias, we adjusted observations that were generated in subpopulations, because it was the only significant bias covariate identified by the bias covariate selection algorithm (Supplementary Table 7 ). There was heterogeneity in the reported RRs across studies, but our meta-analytic method fit the data and covered the estimated residuals (Extended Data Fig. ​ Fig.6b). 6b ). After trimming 10% of outliers, we did not detect publication bias in the results for breast cancer. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for observed RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining 2-star pairs.

One-star associations

When average exposure to smoking does not significantly increase (or decrease) the risk of an outcome, once between-study heterogeneity and other sources of uncertainty are accounted for (that is, ROS < 0), the association between smoking and that outcome is categorized as 1 star, indicating that there is not sufficient evidence for the effect of smoking on the outcome to reject the null (that is, there may be no association). There were seven outcomes with an association with smoking that rated as 1 star: colorectal and kidney cancer (each –0.01 ROS); leukemia (−0.04); fractures (−0.05); prostate cancer (−0.06); liver cancer (−0.32); and asthma (−0.64).

We use smoking and prostate cancer as examples of a 1-star association. We extracted 78 observations from 21 prospective cohort studies and 1 nested case–control study across 15 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 157 , 160 , 166 – 185 . The exposure among the exposed group ranged from 1 cigarette to 90 cigarettes smoked per day, with the 85th percentile of exposure in the exposed group being 29.73 cigarettes smoked per day.

Based on our conservative interpretation of the data, we did not find a significant relationship between cigarettes smoked per day and the RR of prostate cancer (Fig. ​ (Fig.4B). 4B ). The exposure-averaged BPRF for prostate cancer was 0.94, which was opposite null from the full range of mean RRs, such as 1.16 (0.89–1.53) at 20 cigarettes smoked per day. The corresponding ROS was −0.06, which is consistent with no evidence of an association between smoking and increased risk of prostate cancer. See Table ​ Table2 2 and Supplementary Information 4.5 for results for the additional outcomes that have a 1-star association with smoking.

The relationship between smoking and prostate cancer is nonlinear, particularly for middle-to-high exposure levels where the mean risk curve becomes flat (Fig. ​ (Fig.4a). 4a ). We did not adjust for any bias covariate because no significant bias covariates were selected by the algorithm (Supplementary Table 7 ). The RRs reported across studies were very heterogeneous, but our meta-analytic method fit the data and covered the estimated residuals well (Fig. 4b,c ). The ROS associated with the BPRF is −0.05, suggesting that the most conservative interpretation of all evidence, after accounting for between-study heterogeneity, indicates an inconclusive relationship between smoking exposure and the risk of prostate cancer. After trimming 10% of outliers, we still detected publication bias in the results for prostate cancer, which warrants further studies using sample populations. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for observed RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining 1-star pairs.

Age-specific dose–response risk for CVD outcomes

We produced age-specific dose–response risk curves for the five selected CVD outcomes ( Methods ). The ROS associated with each smoking–CVD pair was calculated based on the reference risk curve estimated using all risk data regardless of age information. Estimation of the BPRF, calculation of the associated ROS and star rating of the smoking–CVD pairs follow the same rules as the other non-CVD smoking–outcome pairs (Table ​ (Table1 1 and Supplementary Figs. 2 – 4 ). Once we had estimated the reference dose–response risk curve for each CVD outcome, we determined the age group of the reference risk curve. The reference age group is 55–59 years for all CVD outcomes, except for peripheral artery disease, the reference age group for which is 60–64 years. We then estimated the age pattern of smoking on all CVD outcomes (Supplementary Fig. 2 ) and calculated age attenuation factors of the risk for each age group by comparing the risk of each age group with that of the reference age group, using the estimated age pattern (Supplementary Fig. 3 ). Last, we applied the draws of age attenuation factors of each age group to the dose–response risk curve for the reference age group to produce the age group-specific dose–response risk curves for each CVD outcome (Supplementary Fig. 4 ).

Using our burden-of-proof meta-analytic methods, we re-estimated the dose–response risk of smoking on 36 health outcomes that had previously been demonstrated to be associated with smoking 30 , 186 . Using these methods, which account for both the reported uncertainty of the data and the between-study heterogeneity, we found that 29 of the 36 smoking–outcome pairs are supported by evidence that suggests a significant dose–response relationship between smoking and the given outcome (28 with a harmful association and 1 with a protective association). Conversely, after accounting for between-study heterogeneity, the available evidence of smoking risk on seven outcomes (that is, colon and rectum cancer, kidney cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, fractures, liver cancer and asthma) was insufficient to reject the null or draw definitive conclusions on their relationship to smoking. Among the 29 outcomes that have evidence supporting a significant relationship to smoking, 8 had strong-to-very-strong evidence of a relationship, meaning that, given all the available data on smoking risk, we estimate that average exposure to smoking increases the risk of those outcomes by >50% (4- and 5-star outcomes). The currently available evidence for the remaining 21 outcomes with a significant association with current smoking was weak to moderate, indicating that smoking increases the risk of those outcomes by at least >0–50% (2- and 3-star associations).

Even under our conservative interpretation of the data, smoking is irrefutably harmful to human health, with the greatest increases in risk occurring for laryngeal cancer, aortic aneurysm, peripheral artery disease, lung cancer and other pharynx cancer (excluding nasopharynx cancer), which collectively represent large causes of death and ill-health. The magnitude of and evidence for the associations between smoking and its leading health outcomes are among the highest currently analyzed in the burden-of-proof framework 29 . The star ratings assigned to each smoking–outcome pair offer policy makers a way of categorizing and comparing the evidence for a relationship between smoking and its potential health outcomes ( https://vizhub.healthdata.org/burden-of-proof ). We found that, for seven outcomes in our analysis, there was insufficient or inconsistent evidence to demonstrate a significant association with smoking. This is a key finding because it demonstrates the need for more high-quality data for these particular outcomes; availability of more data should improve the strength of evidence for whether or not there is an association between smoking and these health outcomes.

Our systematic review approach and meta-analytic methods have numerous benefits over existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the same topic that use traditional random effects models. First, our approach relaxes the log(linear) assumption, using a spline ensemble to estimate the risk 29 . Second, our approach allows variable reference groups and exposure ranges, allowing for more accurate estimates regardless of whether or not the underlying relative risk is log(linear). Furthermore, it can detect outliers in the data automatically. Finally, it quantifies uncertainty due to between-study heterogeneity while accounting for small numbers of studies, minimizing the risk that conclusions will be drawn based on spurious findings.

We believe that the results for the association between smoking and each of the 36 health outcomes generated by the present study, including the mean risk function, BPRF, ROS, average excess risk and star rating, could be useful to a range of stakeholders. Policy makers can formulate their decisions on smoking control priorities and resource allocation based on the magnitude of the effect and the consistency of the evidence relating smoking to each of the 36 outcomes, as represented by the ROS and star rating for each smoking–outcome association 187 . Physicians and public health practitioners can use the estimates of average increased risk and the star rating to educate patients and the general public about the risk of smoking and to promote smoking cessation 188 . Researchers can use the estimated mean risk function or BPRF to obtain the risk of an outcome at a given smoking exposure level, as well as uncertainty surrounding that estimate of risk. The results can also be used in the estimation of risk-attributable burden, that is, the deaths and disability-adjusted life-years due to each outcome that are attributable to smoking 30 , 186 . For the general public, these results could help them to better understand the risk of smoking and manage their health 189 .

Although our meta-analysis was comprehensive and carefully conducted, there are limitations to acknowledge. First, the bias covariates used, although carefully extracted and evaluated, were based on observable study characteristics and thus may not fully capture unobserved characteristics such as study quality or context, which might be major sources of bias. Second, if multiple risk estimates with different adjustment levels were reported in a given study, we included only the fully adjusted risk estimate and modeled the adjustment level according to the number of covariates adjusted for (rather than which covariates were adjusted for) and whether a standard adjustment for age and sex had been applied. This approach limited our ability to make full use of all available risk estimates in the literature. Third, although we evaluated the potential for publication bias in the data, we did not test for other forms of bias such as when studies are more consistent with each other than expected by chance 29 . Fourth, our analysis assumes that the relationships between smoking and health outcomes are similar across geographical regions and over time. We do not have sufficient evidence to quantify how the relationships may have evolved over time because the composition of smoking products has also changed over time. Perhaps some of the heterogeneity of the effect sizes in published studies reflects this; however, this cannot be discerned with the currently available information.

In the future, we plan to include crude and partially adjusted risk estimates in our analyses to fully incorporate all available risk estimates, to model the adjusted covariates in a more comprehensive way by mapping the adjusted covariates across all studies comprehensively and systematically, and to develop methods to evaluate additional forms of potential bias. We plan to update our results on a regular basis to provide timely and up-to-date evidence to stakeholders.

To conclude, we have re-estimated the dose–response risk of smoking on 36 health outcomes while synthesizing all the available evidence up to 31 May 2022. We found that, even after factoring in the heterogeneity between studies and other sources of uncertainty, smoking has a strong-to-very-strong association with a range of health outcomes and confirmed that smoking is irrefutably highly harmful to human health. We found that, due to small numbers of studies, inconsistency in the data, small effect sizes or a combination of these reasons, seven outcomes for which some previous research had found an association with smoking did not—under our meta-analytic framework and conservative approach to interpreting the data—have evidence of an association. Our estimates of the evidence for risk of smoking on 36 selected health outcomes have the potential to inform the many stakeholders of smoking control, including policy makers, researchers, public health professionals, physicians, smokers and the general public.

For the present study, we used a meta-analytic tool, MR-BRT (metaregression—Bayesian, regularized, trimmed), to estimate the dose–response risk curves of the risk of a health outcome across the range of current smoking levels along with uncertainty estimates 28 . Compared with traditional meta-analysis using linear mixed effect models, MR-BRT relaxes the assumption of a log(linear) relationship between exposure and risk, incorporates between-study heterogeneity into the uncertainty of risk estimates, handles estimates reported across different exposure categories, automatically identifies and trims outliers, and systematically tests and adjusts for bias due to study designs and characteristics. The meta-analytic methods employed by the present study followed the six main steps proposed by Zheng et al. 28 , 29 , namely: (1) enacting a systematic review approach and data extraction following a pre-specified and standardized protocol; (2) estimating the shape of the relationship between exposure and RR; (3) evaluating and adjusting for systematic bias as a function of study characteristics and risk estimation; (4) quantifying between-study heterogeneity while adjusting for within-study correlation and the number of studies; (5) evaluating potential publication or reporting biases; and (6) estimating the mean risk function and the BPRF, calculating the ROS and categorizing smoking–outcome pairs using a star-rating scheme from 1 to 5.

The estimates for our primary indicators of this work—mean RRs across a range of exposures, BRPFs, ROSs and star ratings for each risk–outcome pair—are not specific to or disaggregated by specific populations. We did not estimate RRs separately for different locations, sexes (although the RR of prostate cancer was estimated only for males and of cervical and breast cancer only for females) or age groups (although this analysis was applied to disease endpoints in adults aged ≥30 years only and, as detailed below, age-specific estimates were produced for the five CVD outcomes).

The present study complies with the PRISMA guidelines 190 (Supplementary Tables 9 and 10 and Supplementary Information 1.5 ) and Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) recommendations 191 (Supplementary Table 11 ). The study was approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board (study no. 9060). The systematic review approach was not registered.

Selecting health outcomes

In the present study, current smoking is defined as the current use of any smoked tobacco product on a daily or occasional basis. Health outcomes were initially selected using the World Cancer Research Fund criteria for convincing or probable evidence as described in Murray et al. 186 . The 36 health outcomes that were selected based on existing evidence of a relationship included 16 cancers (lung cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, leukemia, liver cancer, laryngeal cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, lip and oral cavity cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, other pharynx cancer (excluding nasopharynx cancer), pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer and prostate cancer), 5 CVDs (ischemic heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation and flutter, aortic aneurysm and peripheral artery disease) and 15 other diseases (COPD, lower respiratory tract infections, tuberculosis, asthma, type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, cataracts, gallbladder diseases, low back pain, peptic ulcer disease, rheumatoid arthritis, macular degeneration and fracture). Definitions of the outcomes are described in Supplementary Table 1 .

Step 1: systematic review approach to literature search and data extraction

Informed by the systematic review approach we took for the GBD 2019 (ref. 30 ), for the present study we identified input studies in the literature using a systematic review approach for all 36 smoking–outcome pairs using updated search strings to identify all relevant studies indexed in PubMed up to 31 May 2022 and extracted data on smoking risk estimates. Briefly, the studies that were extracted represented several types of study design (for example, cohort and case–control studies), measured exposure in several different ways and varied in their choice of reference categories (where some compared current smokers with never smokers, whereas others compared current smokers with nonsmokers or former smokers). All these study characteristics were catalogued systematically and taken into consideration during the modeling part of the analysis.

In addition, for CVD outcomes, we also estimated the age pattern of risk associated with smoking. We applied a systematic review of literature approach for smoking risk for the five CVD outcomes. We developed a search string to search for studies reporting any association between binary smoking status (that is, current, former and ever smokers) and the five CVD outcomes from 1 January 1970 to 31 May 2022, and included only studies reporting age-specific risk (RR, odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR)) of smoking status. The inclusion criteria and results of the systematic review approach are reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines 31 . Details for each outcome on the search string used in the systematic review approach, refined inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction template and PRISMA diagram are given in Supplementary Information 1 . Title and/or abstract screening, full text screening and data extraction were conducted by 14 members of the research team and extracted data underwent manual quality assurance by the research team to verify accuracy.

Selecting exposure categories

Cumulative exposure in pack-years was the measure of exposure used for COPD and all cancer outcomes except for prostate cancer, to reflect the risk of both duration and intensity of current smoking on these outcomes. For prostate cancer, CVDs and all the other outcomes except for fractures, we used cigarette-equivalents smoked per day as the exposure for current smoking, because smoking intensity is generally thought to be more important than duration for these outcomes. For fractures, we used binary exposure, because there were few studies examining intensity or duration of smoking on fractures. The smoking–outcome pairs and the corresponding exposures are summarized in Supplementary Table 4 and are congruent with the GBD 2019 (refs. 30 , 186 ).

Steps 2–5: modeling dose–response RR of smoking on the selected health outcomes

Of the six steps proposed by Zheng et al. 29 , steps 2–5 cover the process of modeling dose–response risk curves. In step 2, we estimated the shape (or the ‘signal’) of the dose–response risk curves, integrating over different exposure ranges. To relax the log(linear) assumption usually applied to continuous dose–response risk and make the estimates robust to the placement of spline knots, we used an ensemble spline approach to fit the functional form of the dose–response relationship. The final ensemble model was a weighted combination of 50 models with random knot placement, with the weight of each model proportional to measures of model fit and total variation. To avoid the influence of extreme data and reduce publication bias, we trimmed 10% of data for each outcome as outliers. We also applied a monotonicity constraint to ensure that the mean risk curves were nondecreasing (or nonincreasing in the case of Parkinson’s disease).

In step 3, following the GRADE approach 192 , 193 , we quantified risk of bias across six domains, namely, representativeness of the study population, exposure, outcome, reverse causation, control for confounding and selection bias. Details about the bias covariates are provided in Supplementary Table 4 . We systematically tested for the effect of bias covariates using metaregression, selected significant bias covariates using the Lasso approach 194 , 195 and adjusted for the selected bias covariates in the final risk curve.

In step 4, we quantified between-study heterogeneity accounting for within-study correlation, uncertainty of the heterogeneity, as well as small number of studies. Specifically, we used a random intercept in the mixed-effects model to account for the within-study correlation and used a study-specific random slope with respect to the ‘signal’ to capture between-study heterogeneity. As between-study heterogeneity can be underestimated or even zero when the number of studies is small 196 , 197 , we used Fisher’s information matrix to estimate the uncertainty of the heterogeneity 198 and incorporated that uncertainty into the final results.

In step 5, in addition to generating funnel plots and visually inspecting for asymmetry (Figs. ​ (Figs.1c, 1c , ​ ,2c, 2c , ​ ,3c 3c and ​ and4c 4c and Extended Data Fig. ​ Fig.6c) 6c ) to identify potential publication bias, we also statistically tested for potential publication or reporting bias using Egger’s regression 199 . We flagged potential publication bias in the data but did not correct for it, which is in line with the general literature 10 , 200 , 201 . Full details about the modeling process have been published elsewhere 29 and model specifications for each outcome are in Supplementary Table 6 .

Step 6: estimating the mean risk function and the BPRF

In the final step, step 6, the metaregression model inclusive of the selected bias covariates from step 3 (for example, the highest adjustment level) was used to predict the mean risk function and its 95% UI, which incorporated the uncertainty of the mean effect, between-study heterogeneity and the uncertainty in the heterogeneity estimate accounting for small numbers of studies. Specifically, 1,000 draws were created for each 0.1 level of doses from 0 pack-years to 100 pack-years or cigarette-equivalents smoked per day using the Bayesian metaregression model. The mean of the 1,000 draws was used to estimate the mean risk at each exposure level, and the 25th and 95th draws were used to estimate the 95% UIs for the mean risk at each exposure level.

The BPRF 29 is a conservative estimate of risk function consistent with the available evidence, correcting for both between-study heterogeneity and systemic biases related to study characteristics. The BPRF is defined as either the 5th (if harmful) or 95th (if protective) quantile curve closest to the line of log(RR) of 0, which defines the null (Figs. ​ (Figs.1a, 1a , ​ ,2b, 2b , ​ ,3a 3a and ​ and4a). 4a ). The BPRF represents the smallest harmful (or protective) effect of smoking on the corresponding outcome at each level of exposure that is consistent with the available evidence. A BPRF opposite null from the mean risk function indicates that insufficient evidence is available to reject null, that is, that there may not be an association between risk and outcome. Likewise, the further the BPRF is from null on the same side of null as the mean risk function, the higher the magnitude and evidence for the relationship. The BPRF can be interpreted as indicating that, even accounting for between-study heterogeneity and its uncertainty, the log(RR) across the studied smoking range is at least as high as the BPRF (or at least as low as the BPRF for a protective risk).

To quantify the strength of the evidence, we calculated the ROS for each smoking–outcome association as the signed value of the log(BPRF) averaged between the 15th and 85th percentiles of observed exposure levels for each outcome. The ROS is a single summary of the effect of smoking on the outcome, with higher positive ROSs corresponding to stronger and more consistent evidence and a higher average effect size of smoking and a negative ROS, suggesting that, based on the available evidence, there is no significant effect of smoking on the outcome after accounting for between-study heterogeneity.

For ease of communication, we further classified each smoking–outcome association into a star rating from 1 to 5. Briefly, 1-star associations have an ROS <0, indicating that there is insufficient evidence to find a significant association between smoking and the selected outcome. We divided the positive ROSs into ranges 0.0–0.14 (2-star), >0.14–0.41 (3-star), >0.41–0.62 (4-star) and >0.62 (5-star). These categories correspond to excess risk ranges for harmful risks of 0–15%, >15–50%, >50–85% and >85%. For protective risks, the ranges of exposure-averaged decreases in risk by star rating are 0–13% (2 stars), >13–34% (3 stars), >34–46% (4 stars) and >46% (5 stars).

Among the 36 smoking–outcome pairs analyzed, smoking fracture was the only binary risk–outcome pair, which was due to limited data on the dose–response risk of smoking on fracture 202 . The estimation of binary risk was simplified because the RR was merely a comparison between current smokers and nonsmokers or never smokers. The concept of ROS for continuous risk can naturally extend to binary risk because the BPRF is still defined as the 5th percentile of the effect size accounting for data uncertainty and between-study heterogeneity. However, binary ROSs must be divided by 2 to make them comparable with continuous ROSs, which were calculated by averaging the risk over the range between the 15th and the 85th percentiles of observed exposure levels. Full details about estimating mean risk functions, BPRFs and ROSs for both continuous and binary risk–outcome pairs can be found elsewhere 29 .

Estimating the age-specific risk function for CVD outcomes

For non-CVD outcomes, we assumed that the risk function was the same for all ages and all sexes, except for breast, cervical and prostate cancer, which were assumed to apply only to females or males, respectively. As the risk of smoking on CVD outcomes is known to attenuate with increasing age 203 – 206 , we adopted a four-step approach for GBD 2020 to produce age-specific dose–response risk curves for CVD outcomes.

First, we estimated the reference dose–response risk of smoking for each CVD outcome using dose-specific RR data for each outcome regardless of the age group information. This step was identical to that implemented for the other non-CVD outcomes. Once we had generated the reference curve, we determined the age group associated with it by calculating the weighted mean age across all dose-specific RR data (weighted by the reciprocal of the s.e.m. of each datum). For example, if the weighted mean age of all dose-specific RR data was 56.5, we estimated the age group associated with the reference risk curve to be aged 55–59 years. For cohort studies, the age range associated with the RR estimate was calculated as a mean age at baseline plus the mean/median years of follow-up (if only the maximum years of follow-up were reported, we would halve this value and add it to the mean age at baseline). For case–control studies, the age range associated with the OR estimate was simply the reported mean age at baseline (if mean age was not reported, we used the midpoint of the age range instead).

In the third step, we extracted age group-specific RR data and relevant bias covariates from the studies identified in our systematic review approach of age-specific smoking risk on CVD outcomes, and used MR-BRT to model the age pattern of excess risk (that is, RR-1) of smoking on CVD outcomes with age group-specific excess RR data for all CVD outcomes. We modeled the age pattern of smoking risk on CVDs following the same steps we implemented for modeling dose–response risk curves. In the final model, we included a spline on age, random slope on age by study and the bias covariate encoding exposure definition (that is, current, former and ever smokers), which was picked by the variable selection algorithm 28 , 29 . When predicting the age pattern of the excess risk of smoking on CVD outcomes using the fitted model, we did not include between-study heterogeneity to reduce uncertainty in the prediction.

In the fourth step, we calculated the age attenuation factors of excess risk compared with the reference age group for each CVD outcome as the ratio of the estimated excess risk for each age group to the excess risk for the reference age group. We performed the calculation at the draw level to obtain 1,000 draws of the age attenuation factors for each age group. Once we had estimated the age attenuation factors, we carried out the last step, which consisted of adjusting the risk curve for the reference age group from step 1 using equation (1) to produce the age group-specific risk curves for each CVD outcome:

We implemented the age adjustment at the draw level so that the uncertainty of the age attenuation factors could be naturally incorporated into the final adjusted age-specific RR curves. A PRISMA diagram detailing the systematic review approach, a description of the studies included and the full details about the methods are in Supplementary Information 1.5 and 5.2 .

Estimating the theoretical minimum risk exposure level

The theoretical minimum risk exposure level for smoking was 0, that is, no individuals in the population are current or former smokers.

Model validation

The validity of the meta-analytic tool has been extensively evaluated by Zheng and colleagues using simulation experiments 28 , 29 . For the present study, we conducted two additional sensitivity analyses to examine how the shape of the risk curves was impacted by applying a monotonicity constraint and trimming 10% of data. We present the results of these sensitivity analyses in Supplementary Information 6 . In addition to the sensitivity analyses, the dose–response risk estimates were also validated by plotting the mean risk function along with its 95% UI against both the extracted dose-specific RR data from the studies included and our previous dose–response risk estimates from the GBD 2019 (ref. 30 ). The mean risk functions along with the 95% UIs were validated based on data fit and the level, shape and plausibility of the dose–response risk curves. All curves were validated by all authors and reviewed by an external expert panel, comprising professors with relevant experience from universities including Johns Hopkins University, Karolinska Institute and University of Barcelona; senior scientists working in relevant departments at the WHO and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and directors of nongovernmental organizations such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Statistical analysis

Analyses were carried out using R v.3.6.3, Python v.3.8 and Stata v.16.

Statistics and reproducibility

The study was a secondary analysis of existing data involving systematic reviews and meta-analyses. No statistical method was used to predetermine sample size. As the study did not involve primary data collection, randomization and blinding, data exclusions were not relevant to the present study, and, as such, no data were excluded and we performed no randomization or blinding. We have made our data and code available to foster reproducibility.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Online content

Any methods, additional references, Nature Research reporting summaries, extended data, supplementary information, acknowledgements, peer review information; details of author contributions and competing interests; and statements of data and code availability are available at 10.1038/s41591-022-01978-x.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information 1: Data source identification and assessment. Supplementary Information 2: Data inputs. Supplementary Information 3: Study quality and bias assessment. Supplementary Information 4: The dose–response RR curves and their 95% UIs for all smoking–outcome pairs. Supplementary Information 5: Supplementary methods. Supplementary Information 6: Sensitivity analysis. Supplementary Information 7: Binary smoking–outcome pair. Supplementary Information 8: Risk curve details. Supplementary Information 9: GATHER and PRISMA checklists.

Acknowledgements

Research reported in this publication was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funders. The study funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the final report or the decision to publish.

We thank the Tobacco Metrics Team Advisory Group for their valuable input and review of the work. The members of the Advisory Group are: P. Allebeck, R. Chandora, J. Drope, M. Eriksen, E. Fernández, H. Gouda, R. Kennedy, D. McGoldrick, L. Pan, K. Schotte, E. Sebrie, J. Soriano, M. Tynan and K. Welding.

Extended data

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and type 2 diabetes conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and breast cancer conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

Author contributions

X.D., S.I.H., S.A.M., E.C.M., E.M.O., C.J.L.M. and E.G. managed the estimation or publications process. X.D. and G.F.G. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. X.D. and P.Z. had primary responsibility for applying analytical methods to produce estimates. X.D., G.F.G., N.S.A., J.A.A., S.C., R.F., V.I., M.J.M., L.M., S.I.N., C.O., M.B.R. and J.W. had primary responsibility for seeking, cataloguing, extracting or cleaning data, and for designing or coding figures and tables. X.D., G.F.G., M.B.R., N.S.A., H.R.L., C.O. and J.W. provided data or critical feedback on data sources. X.D., J.H., R.J.D.S., A.Y.A., P.Z., C.J.L.M. and E.G. developed methods or computational machinery. X.D., G.F.G., M.B.R., S.I.H., J.H., R.J.D.S., A.Y.A., P.Z., C.J.L.M. and E.G. provided critical feedback on methods or results. X.D., G.F.G., M.B.R., C.B., S.I.H., L.B.M., S.A.M., A.Y.A. and E.G. drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content. X.D., S.I.H., L.B.M., E.C.M., E.M.O. and E.G. managed the overall research enterprise.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Medicine thanks Frederic Sitas and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Jennifer Sargent and Ming Yang, in collaboration with the Nature Medicine team.

Data availability

Code availability, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

are available for this paper at 10.1038/s41591-022-01978-x.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41591-022-01978-x.

• Buy Custom Assignment
• Custom College Papers
• Buy Dissertation
• Buy Research Papers
• Buy Custom Term Papers
• Cheap Custom Term Papers
• Custom Courseworks
• Custom Thesis Papers
• Custom Expository Essays
• Custom Plagiarism Check
• Cheap Custom Essay
• Custom Argumentative Essays
• Custom Case Study
• Custom Annotated Bibliography
• Custom Book Report
• How It Works
• +1 (888) 398 0091
• Essay Samples
• Essay Topics
• Research Topics
• Uncategorized
• Writing Tips

How To Create A Thesis Statement For An Academic Essay About Smoking In The Us

August 10, 2017

A thesis statement is not supposed to be something that you have to worry about. This is actually one of the easiest things that you need to think about. There are a number of students who struggle to learn how to frame a really good statement, and bearing that in mind, it will be important to at least try and make sure that you are in a good position to address the issue at hand, and then from there you can think about how to frame this and make a really good paper in the process.

The following are some ideas that you need to think about when you are looking to write the thesis statement for your essay on smoking in the US:

• What do you want to tell the reader?

What idea do you want the reader to have?

How do your ideas fit in with the topic.

If at all there is something that you need to know when working on this particular idea for your research essay , it is the fact that you need to figure out beforehand the message that you want to share with the reader of your paper. This is one of the most important things that will help you determine how to frame this statement the way you want it to come out.

If you can do this well, rest assured that your statement will blend in perfectly with the reader, and you will have the best experience so far when you are working on this.

Other than what you want to tell the audience, you also need to think in terms of the perception that you want them to have of your topic . You should think about how you would want them to react when you are discussing your ideas on smoking within the US, and then frame your statement based on the same concept.

A good thesis statement has to blend in well with the topic of your essay .

This is mandatory. Someone should read it and see the connection between it and your topic and nod in appreciation. If you are able to do this, you will have made the first and most important step towards writing one of the best papers ever.

Write my essay for me ? With our service that  is the best custom writing service , it's easy! Ask support for help.

Sociology Research Topics Ideas

Importance of Computer in Nursing Practice Essay

History Research Paper Topics For Students

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related emails.

Latest Articles

Navigating the complexities of a Document-Based Question (DBQ) essay can be daunting, especially given its unique blend of historical analysis...

An introduction speech stands as your first opportunity to connect with an audience, setting the tone for the message you...

Embarking on the journey to write a rough draft for an essay is not just a task but a pivotal...

I want to feel as happy, as your customers do, so I'd better order now

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.

Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places? Essay

Introduction, thesis statement, reasons for the ban of smoking in public places, the opposing views, economic point of view, social point of view, works cited.

Many governments across the globe have moved to ban smocking in public places. Whether the action is justified or not, is a matter of fierce debate. Often, the proponents of the proposition carry the day arguing that smoke from cigarette inhaled by non-smokers poses health risks.

Thus, the banning action is based on the premise that non-smokers should be protected from risks associated with proximity to cigarette smoke (Warner 71). The other premise is that effects of smoke whether directly inhaled or partially taken in proximity with smokers are the same. However, little attention has been given to the opposing views which have always been dismissed as baseless.

Most academic studies and researches have cited individual rights as the basis for smocking in public ignoring other factors such as economy, social as well as other individualistic reasons (Viscusi 31). Moreover, much attention has also been given to dangers posed by cigarette smoking specifically health problems while ignoring the opponent side of view.

Further, little research has also been conducted to ascertain some of the issues that support public smoking or smoking in general (Viscusi 31). This does not necessarily mean that smoking should be allowed. However, other factors should be considered. Besides, various options should be explored before imposing a ban on smoking cigarette in public.

Smoking in public places poses health risks to non smokers and should be banned. This paper will be discussing whether cigarette smoking should not be allowed in public places. First the paper will explore dangers associated with smoking in public and not on those who smoke, but on non-smokers.

The paper will then examine these propositions and ascertain whether they hold and establish counter arguments against the propositions. It is concluded that even though smoking poses health risks among the individuals, economic, social and individual values must be taken into consideration before a blanket ban on the practice is imposed (Abedian et al. 71).

The proponents of this rule have several arguments majorly based on scientific studies and results from health institutions. These arguments cannot be disputed, but over reliance on them is what makes the arguments a bit absurd (Warner 71).

However, various researches have always pointed health risks associated with smoking. Besides, smoking is an environmental hazard as much of the content in the cigarette contains chemicals and hydrocarbons that are considered to be dangerous to both life and environment (Lott and Richard 102).

Biologists and epidemiologists point out passive smoking is harmful to health. In other words, those who come in contact with second-hand smoke risk their health statuses (Lott and Richard 102). Several risks are associated with second-hand smoke that majority come in contact with in public places.

In most cases, partial smokers suffer from cardiac arrests, lung cancers, central nervous system impairments as well as other diseases caused by carcinogenic chemicals from cigarette smoke (Viscusi 35).

Other health conditions caused by smoking include asthma and other respiratory infections resulting from hydrocarbons and ammonia present in the second-hand smoke. Partial smokers also suffer from eye irritations, headaches and flu as a result of smoke particles (Viscusi and Joseph 10).

Findings from other scientific studies indicate that smoking reduces individual lifespan by a minimum of ten percent. The discovery also indicates that women are likely to suffer eleven years off their life expectancy. Moreover, people who smoke are more susceptible to certain forms of cancer that would have been avoided without smoking (Viscusi and Joseph 10). Smoking is injurious to health.

Those who have opposed the view on smoking ban in public places have been accused of citing individual rights to support their actions. In as much as they might be true, the weak point in this argument is that the rule applies to both smokers and non-smokers (Abedian et al. 71). Every one has a right to smoke and also not to smoke. Therefore, the argument based on the legal rights of an individual remains ambiguous.

From the economic point of view, smoking is an individual choice. Like any other product these individuals may be willing to buy, cigarette is a commodity that its consumers would want and willing to purchase. Indeed, people make everyday choices founded on their preferences, and these choices are often associated with hazards and reservations (Warner 71).

All social interactions that individuals are involved in could be associated with risks which, in most cases are greater than risks related to smoke that smokers’ exhale. The reason is that the expected outcomes of the social interactions are greater than the risks as well as the costs involved (Viscusi 40).

Therefore, it would be ridiculous to make a conclusion that smoking in public should be prohibited simply because it presents a number of risks.

Based on this argument, the number of fatalities from other causes such as accidents, sexual relations, other diseases such as flu and pneumonia which are communicable and easily spread in public places are by far numerous than the fatalities caused by the second-hand smoke.

In other words, the risk of contracting other diseases, dying from AIDS as a result of sexual relations as well as dying from accidents are five times higher than the risk of dying from a second-hand smoke (Abedian et al. 71).

The other attribute of the economic proposition is that it examines the method through which individual choices can be reconciled based on their preferences (Viscusi and Joseph 44).

That is, individuals who smoke and those who tend to avoid second-hand smoke. According to the economic studies, primary institutes such as contractual freedom and property rights offer an effectual solution more than formal regulations in fulfilling personal preference (Viscusi and Joseph 44).

Another factor that should also be taken into consideration is the degree to which a place is considered public (Warner 71). It should be understood that most of the public places were previously private places. The difference is that owners allow the public to access them purely for commercial purposes.

As such, the role of property rights should be implemented to stop public smoking. In this regard, much of the places considered public are private such as the work places, restaurants, buses and bars. These places are opened for all manner of customers’ smokers as well as non smokers. The owner should specify the target customers who are purely non-smokers.

Therefore, any smoker who enters in these establishments is held liable for any risk of second hand smoking. On the other hand, an establishment may require that only smokers enter its establishment. In such a situation, any establishment will not be held responsible for any risks associated with second hand –smoke in a case non smoker enters the establishment.

In both scenarios, there is economic efficiency for all the parties concerned based on their preferences. However, in the circumstances that there is no specificity and the definition of the public, the whole process becomes chaotic (Warner 71).

Socially, smoking has been perceived as being fashionable and stylist. This perception has been carried over from generations to generations. Smoking is not something new rather it has been practiced for centuries. In a critical examination as to why people have been smoking for centuries, the reason is because they derived pleasure that was closely related to fashion and style.

That is why people still smoke and younger generations find themselves to be smoking despite health warnings or knowledge of health risks associated with the practice (Lott and Richard 102). This value should not be undermined as scientists could not explain why some smokers stay longer than those who smoke. Moreover, smoking is not the only cause of all health related diseases.

The best possible strategy to control tobacco consumption should be put in place. This will uphold individual’s self-esteem and appreciate society preferences. Scientists and other health proponents argue that people should not be guaranteed to smoke openly.

However, the economical approach stipulates that the management should not impose a ban on some individuals’ day to day choices. In fact, people’s preferences are highly regarded in the general public. Banning public smoking could favor certain communities while offend the treaty-liberty and material goods privileges.

Abedian, Iraj, Merwe Rowena, Nick Wilkins and Prabhat Jha. The Economics of Tobacco Control: Towards an Optimal Policy Mix . Cape Town: University of Cape Town, 1998. Print. p. 71.

Lott, John and Richard Manning. “Have Changing Liability Rules Compensated Workers Twice for Occupational Hazards? Earning Premiums and Cancer Risks.” Journal of Legal Studies , 29.1 (2000): 99-128. Print.

Viscusi, Kip and Joseph Aldy. “The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates throughout the World.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , 27.1 (2003): 5-76. Print.

Viscusi, Kip. “The Value of Life: Estimates with Risks by Occupation and Industry.” Economic Inquiry , 42.1 (2004): 29-48. Print.

Warner, Kenneth. The Economics of Tobacco and Health . Cape Town: University of Cape Town, 1998. Print. p. 71.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, January 13). Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places? https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-smoking-be-banned-in-public-places/

"Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places?" IvyPanda , 13 Jan. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/should-smoking-be-banned-in-public-places/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places'. 13 January.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places?" January 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-smoking-be-banned-in-public-places/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places?" January 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-smoking-be-banned-in-public-places/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places?" January 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-smoking-be-banned-in-public-places/.

• Secondhand Smoke Effect on Infants and Young Children
• Ban Smoking in Cars
• Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay
• Smoking Cigarette Should Be Banned
• Legislation Reform of Public Smoking
• Should Cigarettes Be Banned? Essay
• Understanding Advertising: Second-Hand Smoking
• The Smoking Ban: Arguments Comparison
• Smoking Ban in the United States of America
• Ethical Problem of Smoking
• Rural health workforce profile
• Health Care Costs for Smokers
• Organizational Behavior in Health Care
• Quality in Health Care
• Keys to leadership in HCA