Bibliographic Bias in South African Study on ¿¿Waterpipe¿¿ Smoking (reminder: the 2 first sentences of the cited WHO flawed report on this issue contain 2 errors)
Kamal Chaouachi, DIU Tabacologie, Paris XI University
1 February 2016
___
The strong bibliographical (publication) bias of this paper by Daniels and Roman (D/R) will certainly not help in reaching a consensus on this public health issue [1]. It would be tedious to comment on each of the highly questionable references the authors cite. All independent researchers know there is an available critique of almost each of them in the corresponding open peer-reviewed literature.
Consequently, and in order to spare time and space, we will just refer interested readers to a relevant comment published on a similar paper and published in this very journal (Tobacco Induced Diseases)[2].
Interestingly and quite relevantly, the very first bibliographical reference of D/R¿s article points to the WHO flawed report on the ""waterpipe"" issue whose two first sentences -this must be reminded- contain not less than a misquotation and a serious error[3]...
______________
[1] Daniels KE, Roman NV. A descriptive study of the perceptions and behaviors of waterpipe use by university students in the Western Cape, South Africa. Tob Induc Dis. 2013 Feb 8;11(1):4. [Epub ahead of print]
http://www.tobaccoinduceddiseases.com/content/11/1/4/abstract
[2] Chaouachi K. [Comment] Time to Make Tabula Rasa of Some Misconceptions in Research on Hookah (Narghile, Shisha) Tobacco Smoking. Tobacco Induced Diseases 2010 (2 Jul)
http://www.tobaccoinduceddiseases.com/content/5/1/16/comments#394660
[3] Chaouachi K. A Critique of the WHO's TobReg "Advisory Note" entitled: "Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking: Health Effects, Research Needs and Recommended Actions by Regulators. Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine 2006 (17 Nov); 5:17. Doi:10.1186/1477-5751-5-17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664583/
___
Bibliographic Bias in South African Study on ¿¿Waterpipe¿¿ Smoking (reminder: the 2 first sentences of the cited WHO flawed report on this issue contain 2 errors)
1 February 2016
___
The strong bibliographical (publication) bias of this paper by Daniels and Roman (D/R) will certainly not help in reaching a consensus on this public health issue [1]. It would be tedious to comment on each of the highly questionable references the authors cite. All independent researchers know there is an available critique of almost each of them in the corresponding open peer-reviewed literature.
Consequently, and in order to spare time and space, we will just refer interested readers to a relevant comment published on a similar paper and published in this very journal (Tobacco Induced Diseases)[2].
Interestingly and quite relevantly, the very first bibliographical reference of D/R¿s article points to the WHO flawed report on the ""waterpipe"" issue whose two first sentences -this must be reminded- contain not less than a misquotation and a serious error[3]...
______________
[1] Daniels KE, Roman NV. A descriptive study of the perceptions and behaviors of waterpipe use by university students in the Western Cape, South Africa. Tob Induc Dis. 2013 Feb 8;11(1):4. [Epub ahead of print]
http://www.tobaccoinduceddiseases.com/content/11/1/4/abstract
[2] Chaouachi K. [Comment] Time to Make Tabula Rasa of Some Misconceptions in Research on Hookah (Narghile, Shisha) Tobacco Smoking. Tobacco Induced Diseases 2010 (2 Jul)
http://www.tobaccoinduceddiseases.com/content/5/1/16/comments#394660
[3] Chaouachi K. A Critique of the WHO's TobReg "Advisory Note" entitled: "Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking: Health Effects, Research Needs and Recommended Actions by Regulators. Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine 2006 (17 Nov); 5:17. Doi:10.1186/1477-5751-5-17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664583/
___
Competing interests
No competing interest.