Hey all, as you all have read (or will read), there is an article called Smoking, Nicotine, and IBD. There is a vague reference to SHS and IBD, and I was interested, so I looked up some information. The following link is to an article analyzing just that:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2998445/
This article suggests that second hand smoking, especially in developing countries, can have detrimental effects on children, the effect this article analyzed being IBD. The article essentially says that a reduction in exposure to SHS will mean a reduction in children with IBD, but there needs to be more extensive studies done in developing countries.
What I didn't like about this article was that the researchers just pulled together a bunch of other scholarly articles, and based their findings and opinions from this. While their results and conclusions are interesting, I would really like to see some more research done in developing countries where instances of IBD are high.
Ethan Burns
Ethan,
ReplyDeleteTo me it would make sense based on the lay article "Smoking, Nicotine and IBD", that the children would have a higher chance of developing IBD with exposure to Second Hand Smoke because they are not having a protective effect from the nicotine in the cigarettes but are still exposed to the more dangerous effects of smoking.
However, you must also consider if the research controlled for other food and environmental factors that might contribute to IBD in developing countries, as well.
I have to agree with Ethan regarding this research, it really is just a hodgepodge of papers gathered together from across the internet and analyzed for some common conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI feel that this paper was more of a summary of the common conclusions found in a bunch of different research papers. Unlike other papers we have read and discussed, I don't feel like this paper taught me anything or explained anything in a significant way. Most of it is just them explain the procedure of how they obtained the research papers and how they sorted through them. After that it mostly seemed like some sort of statistics course because I kept seeing was numbers and "P" values that I could not grasp the concept of.
Overall, I think I could have learned more from actually reading the papers they reviewed than what I did from reading this. Regardless though, the conclusions were sound, and I think it was nice find on your part.