Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparable Sensitivities of Urine Cotinine and Breath Carbon Monoxide at Follow-Up Time Points of Three Months or More in a Smoking Cessation Trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparable Sensitivities of Urine Cotinine and Breath Carbon Monoxide at Follow-Up Time Points of Three Months or More in a Smoking Cessation Trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparable Sensitivities of Urine Cotinine and Breath Carbon Monoxide at Follow-Up Time Points of Three Months or More in a Smoking Cessation Trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparable Sensitivities of Urine Cotinine and Breath Carbon Monoxide at Follow-Up Time Points of Three Months or More in a Smoking Cessation Trial
2010
Overview
To control for likely overreporting of abstinence in clinical trials of smoking cessation aids, field convention demands the corroboration of subjects’ self-reports by a biochemical/pharmacological marker. It is, however, currently debated if urinary cotinine (UC), a metabolite of nicotine, should be preferred because of its higher sensitivity, although sample collection for and analysis of cotinine are much more expensive and work intensive than carbon monoxide (CO) measurements in exhaled air. In the present study, it turned out that UC was of only moderately higher sensitivity than CO (99.4% vs. 96.3%; p = 0.02), the difference being significant only at group sizes of >164. UC identified participants as smokers who escaped CO detection in 4.9% of the cases, whereas CO identified smokers who escaped UC detection in 2.7% of the cases (p = 0.014). Our findings suggest that the costs/disadvantages of using UC instead of CO may outweigh its benefit as a pharmacological marker of (non)smoking status.
Publisher
S. Karger AG
