TABLE 2—
Exact Logistic Models Fit With Industry Funding or Affiliation Source as Predictors for Pro–Tobacco Harm Reduction (Pro-THR) Stance and Research Article Type: January 1, 1992, to July 26, 2016
| OR (95% CI) | Industry-Funded Pro-THR Articles, No. | |
| Is presence of industry funding or affiliation associated with pro-THR stance? (n = 749)a | ||
| E-cigarette industry | 20.9 (5.3, 180.7) | 53 |
| Tobacco industry | 59.4 (10.1, +Infinity) | 54 |
| Pharmaceutical industry | 2.18 (1.3, 3.7) | 88 |
| Is presence of industry funding or affiliation associated with type of research article (empirical)? (n = 826) | ||
| E-cigarette industry | 0.7 (0.4, 1.3) | 20 |
| Tobacco industry | 2.3 (1.3, 4.2) | 35 |
| Pharmaceutical industry | 1.3 (0.9, 2.2) | 56 |
| Among nonempirical research articles, is industry funding associated with pro-THR stance? (n = 459)b | ||
| E-cigarette industry | 20.1 (3.2, 860.2) | 34 |
| Tobacco industry | 19.1 (3.0, 799.5) | 22 |
| Pharmaceutical industry | 2.4 (1.1, 5.3) | 51 |
| Among empirical research articles, is industry funding associated with pro-THR stance? (n = 258) | ||
| E-cigarette industry | 16.4 (2.46, 701.76) | 19 |
| Tobacco industryc | . . . | 32 |
| Pharmaceutical industry | 2.1 (1.03, 4.45) | 37 |
Note. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio; THR = tobacco harm reduction.
a
The articles with THR stance coded as neutral or mixed (n = 77) were excluded from this analysis. Models take sparse data into account.
b
Here, 77 articles taking a neutral THR stance were excluded.
c
In addition to excluding the 77 neutral THR articles, all 32 articles funded by or affiliated with the tobacco industry were dropped from the analysis as they were all pro-THR (perfect prediction).