Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 3 complete abstracts (664 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
Willful or deliberate act of inhaling and exhaling smoke from burning substances or agents held by hand.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Smoking Behaviors; Behavior, Smoking; Behaviors, Smoking; Smoking Behavior; Smoking Habit; Habit, Smoking; Habits, Smoking; Smoking Habits.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Behavior
- Narrower topics
- Pipe Smoking; Smoking Reduction; Smoking, Non-Tobacco Products; Tobacco Smoking; Vaping
- See also
- Marijuana Smoking; Tobacco Smoke Pollution; Tobacco Use Disorder
Related concepts
- Smoke
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 170,957 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Smoking” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 23,584 of them (13.8%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 56,050 records.
Reviews account for 15,794 records (9.2%) and meta-analyses for 2,152. Randomized controlled trials number 6,169 (3.6%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 50,883 |
| 2000-2009 | 40,440 |
| 2010-2019 | 56,050 |
| 2020 onward | 23,584 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 15,794 | 9.2% |
| Meta-analyses | 2,152 | 1.3% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 6,169 | 3.6% |
Method: PubMed query "Smoking"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in psychiatry and psychology
Research on mental health and behaviour relies on questionnaires, interviews and rating scales rather than physical measurements, so how a condition was defined and measured shapes every result. Many studies are observational or small, placebo responses can be large, and findings in one group or culture may not carry over to another. Nothing on this page is advice about diagnosis or treatment; anyone worried about their mental health should talk to a qualified clinician. Check how outcomes were measured, who took part and how long they were followed.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interaction between smoking and HLA-A*02:01 in multiple sclerosis progression | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 2 | cc by PMID 42397838 · DOI · PMC13385633 |
| Recent cannabis exposure and acute nicotine effects: insights from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled intravenous nicotine studies | 2026 | Randomized controlled trial Design not recorded in structured metadata | 1 | cc by PMID 42189934 · DOI · PMC13322297 |
| Cigarette smoking, e-cigarette use, and hypertension: a population-based cross-sectional study | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 1 | cc by PMID 42243491 · DOI · PMC13457075 |
Interaction between smoking and HLA-A*02:01 in multiple sclerosis progression [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundGene-environment interactions between smoking and HLA genotypes have been reported in multiple sclerosis (MS) susceptibility, although their relevance beyond disease onset remains unclear.
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionThese findings suggest that the impact of smoking on MS progression varies according to immunogenetic background.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (202 words)
BackgroundGene-environment interactions between smoking and HLA genotypes have been reported in multiple sclerosis (MS) susceptibility, although their relevance beyond disease onset remains unclear.ObjectivesTo examine whether the effect of smoking on disability progression differs according to HLA-A*02:01 and HLA-DRB1*15:01 status.MethodsPatients from two population-based case-control cohorts were classified by smoking status at diagnosis and by HLA-A*02:01 and HLA-DRB1*15:01 status and were followed for up to 15 years through the Swedish MS registry (n = 6807). Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 24-week confirmed disability worsening (CDW) and time to Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) 3, 4, and 6. Interaction was assessed on the additive scale.ResultsCompared with HLA-A*02:01-positive non-smokers, smoking at diagnosis was associated with a higher risk of disability progression primarily among individuals who lacked HLA-A*02:01, with consistently elevated risks of CDW (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.06-1.26), EDSS 3 (HR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.08-1.47), and EDSS 4 (HR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.25-1.79). No clear effect of smoking was observed among HLA-A*02:01 carriers, and no evidence of interaction was detected between smoking and HLA-DRB1*15:01.ConclusionThese findings suggest that the impact of smoking on MS progression varies according to immunogenetic background.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42397838 · DOI · PMC13385633
Recent cannabis exposure and acute nicotine effects: insights from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled intravenous nicotine studies [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ObjectiveCannabis-nicotine co-use is common and may affect cessation outcomes, yet whether recent cannabis exposure alters nicotine's acute effects in humans remains unclear.
- Closing excerpt
- gov/study/NCT01495819.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (198 words)
ObjectiveCannabis-nicotine co-use is common and may affect cessation outcomes, yet whether recent cannabis exposure alters nicotine's acute effects in humans remains unclear. We examined whether recent, non-daily cannabis exposure modulates the acute subjective effects of intravenous (IV) nicotine.MethodsWe pooled data from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies using IV nicotine to isolate nicotine's pharmacodynamics in adults who smoke tobacco cigarettes (N = 60). Participants completed 3 sessions (placebo, 0.1 mg, 0.2 mg nicotine/70 kg). Recent cannabis exposure was defined a priori (past-30-day use with positive urine 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol vs no past-30-day use with negative screen). Primary outcomes were peak Drug Effects Questionnaire (DEQ) composites-stimulatory, pleasurable, aversive-within 10 minutes post-infusion. Secondary outcomes included nicotine self-administration behavior (proportion of nicotine choices) and cardiovascular responses (heart rate, blood pressure). Linear mixed-effects models included dose, cannabis exposure, sex, and FTND.ResultsNicotine increased all DEQ domains dose-dependently (P ConclusionsRecent, non-daily cannabis exposure is thus associated with selectively greater aversive responses to a clinically relevant IV nicotine dose, without differential cardiovascular reactivity or altered nicotine choice. These findings support a shift in the aversive limb of nicotine's dose-response and inform mechanistic and clinical studies on how cannabis exposure shapes nicotine reinforcement and cessation outcomes.Clinical trial registrationNCT01495819, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01495819.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42189934 · DOI · PMC13322297
Cigarette smoking, e-cigarette use, and hypertension: a population-based cross-sectional study [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Cigarette smoking is an established cardiovascular risk factor, but the association between electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use and hypertension remains unclear.
- Closing excerpt
- In propensity score-matched analyses, the inverse association for current exclusive e-cigarette use was attenuated and no longer statistically significant, suggesting that this finding may partly reflect healthy switcher bias and residual confounding rather than a protective effect.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (264 words)
Cigarette smoking is an established cardiovascular risk factor, but the association between electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use and hypertension remains unclear. We examined this association in a nationally representative adult population in Scotland using pooled cross-sectional data from 22,187 adults aged ≥16 years in the Scottish Health Survey (2017-2022). Participants were classified into five mutually exclusive groups: never users (n = 11,760), former smokers (n = 6,201), current cigarette smoking only (n = 2,747), current e-cigarette use only (n = 907), and current dual use (n = 572). Hypertension was defined as self-reported doctor-diagnosed high blood pressure, excluding pregnancy-related hypertension. Multivariable logistic regression estimated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary analyses disaggregated current e-cigarette use only by smoking history, and propensity score matching was performed as a sensitivity analysis. Overall hypertension prevalence was 26.5%, ranging from 19.0% among current exclusive e-cigarette users to 33.5% among former smokers. Compared with never users, current e-cigarette use only was associated with lower odds of hypertension (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.93), whereas former smokers had higher odds (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.20). No significant associations were observed for current cigarette smoking only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84-1.06) or current dual use (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75-1.20). The inverse association for exclusive e-cigarette use was confined to former smokers who had switched to vaping (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.94). In propensity score-matched analyses, the inverse association for current exclusive e-cigarette use was attenuated and no longer statistically significant, suggesting that this finding may partly reflect healthy switcher bias and residual confounding rather than a protective effect.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42243491 · DOI · PMC13457075
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Association studies of up to 1.2 million individuals yield new insights into the genetic etiology of tobacco and alcohol use [4]
- Research article Worldwide Incidence of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage According to Region, Time Period, Blood Pressure, and Smoking Prevalence in the Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [5]
- Research article The impact of COPD and smoking history on the severity of COVID-19: A systemic review and meta-analysis [6]
- Research article Low cigarette consumption and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: meta-analysis of 141 cohort studies in 55 study reports [7]
- Research article Effect of Smoking on Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-regression [8]
- Research article Self-regulation in childhood as a predictor of future outcomes: A meta-analytic review [9]
Full-text reviews on EvidenceLib
Open-access review articles about this topic, reproduced in full with authors, licence and references.
Hidradenitis suppurativa and its association with obesity, smoking, and diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Khaled E. Elzawawi, Ibrahim Elmakaty, Mohammad Habibullah et al. · International Wound Journal 2024 · CC BY 4.0
Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation
Jonathan Livingstone-Banks, Thomas R Fanshawe, Kyla H Thomas et al. · The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2023 · CC BY 4.0
Cigarette Smoking and Human Gut Microbiota in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review
Martina Antinozzi, Monica Giffi, Nicolò Sini et al. · Biomedicines 2022 · CC BY 4.0
Influences of Maternal Nutrition and Lifestyle Factors on Early Childhood Oral Health: A Systematic Review of Mechanisms and Intervention Strategies
Murad Alrashdi · Children 2024 · CC BY 4.0
References
- Hedström AK, Stridh P, Hillert J, Olsson T, Alfredsson L. Interaction between smoking and HLA-A*02:01 in multiple sclerosis progression. . 2026. PMID 42397838 · DOI · PMC13385633
- Costa GPA, MacLean RR, Sofuoglu M, De Aquino JP. Recent cannabis exposure and acute nicotine effects: insights from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled intravenous nicotine studies. . 2026. PMID 42189934 · DOI · PMC13322297
- Adebisi YA, Volpe M, George J, Shukri AK, Alshahrani NZ, Capodanno D, et al.. Cigarette smoking, e-cigarette use, and hypertension: a population-based cross-sectional study. . 2026. PMID 42243491 · DOI · PMC13457075
- Liu M, Jiang Y, Wedow R, Li Y, Brazel DM, Chen F, et al.. Association studies of up to 1.2 million individuals yield new insights into the genetic etiology of tobacco and alcohol use. Nat Genet. 2019. PMID 30643251 · DOI · PMC6358542
- Etminan N, Chang HS, Hackenberg K, de Rooij NK, Vergouwen MDI, Rinkel GJE, et al.. Worldwide Incidence of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage According to Region, Time Period, Blood Pressure, and Smoking Prevalence in the Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Neurol. 2019. PMID 30659573 · DOI · PMC6515606
- Zhao Q, Meng M, Kumar R, Wu Y, Huang J, Lian N, et al.. The impact of COPD and smoking history on the severity of COVID-19: A systemic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020. PMID 32293753 · DOI · PMC7262275
- Hackshaw A, Morris JK, Boniface S, Tang JL, Milenković D. Low cigarette consumption and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: meta-analysis of 141 cohort studies in 55 study reports. BMJ. 2018. PMID 29367388 · DOI · PMC5781309
- Leite FRM, Nascimento GG, Scheutz F, López R. Effect of Smoking on Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-regression. Am J Prev Med. 2018. PMID 29656920 · DOI
- Robson DA, Allen MS, Howard SJ. Self-regulation in childhood as a predictor of future outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2020. PMID 31904248 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-11-04.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.