Analysis of the Effect of Multiple Testing in Assessing Tobacco Product Differences

1. Health Canada: Tobacco Reporting Regulations SOR/2000-273; 2000. Available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2000-273/ (accessed April 2017).Search in Google Scholar

2. Venezuela Ministry of Health & Social Development: Regulation and Control of Cigarette & Other Derivative Tobacco for Human Consumption; 2004.Search in Google Scholar

3. Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency: RDC No. 90 and its Amendment; 2007. Available at: http://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/country/brazil/laws (accessed April 2017).Search in Google Scholar

4. Taiwan Department of Health: Regulations Governing Reporting of Tobacco Product Information under the Tobacco Hazards Prevention & Control Act (THPCA); 2007.Search in Google Scholar

5. FDA: Draft Guidance; Reporting Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products and Tobacco Smoke Under Section 904(a)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; 2012. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM297828.pdf (accessed April 2017).Search in Google Scholar

6. World Health Organization (WHO): The Scientific Basis of Tobacco Product Regulation, Second Report of a WHO Study Group (TobReg); WHO technical report series No. 951, WHO Press, Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. Available at: http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_interaction/tobreg/publications/9789241209519.pdf (accessed April 2017).Search in Google Scholar

7. World Health Organization - WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation: The Scientific Basis of Tobacco Product Regulation, Fifth Report of a WHO Study Group (TobReg); WHO Technical report series; 989, WHO Press, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/161512/1/9789241209892.pdf?ua=1&ua=1 (accessed April 2017).Search in Google Scholar

8. Purkis, S.: Letter to the Editor: Analysis of the Data Variability in the Australian Benchmark Study 2000 - 2001; 2009. Available at https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cttr.2009.23.issue-5/cttr-2013-0867/cttr-2013-0867.xml (accessed April 2017). DOI: 10.2478/cttr-2013-086710.2478/cttr-2013-0867Search in Google Scholar

9. Hyodo, T., K. Minagawa, T. Inoue, J. Fujimoto, N. Minami, R. Bito, and A. Mikita: Estimation of Mouth Level Exposure to Smoke Constituents of Cigarettes with Different Tar Levels Using Filter Analysis; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 67 (2013) 486–498. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.09.00910.1016/j.yrtph.2013.09.00924113618Search in Google Scholar

10. Purkis, S.W., M. Meger, and R. Wuttke: A Review of Current Smoke Constituent Measurement Activities and Aspects of Yield Variability; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 62 (2012) 202–213. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.10.00610.1016/j.yrtph.2011.10.00622019550Search in Google Scholar

11. Eldridge, A., T.R. Betson, M.V. Gama, and K. McAdam: Variation in Tobacco and Mainstream Smoke Toxicant Yields from Selected Commercial Cigarette Products; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 71 (2015) 409–427. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.01.00610.1016/j.yrtph.2015.01.00625620723Search in Google Scholar

12. Belushkin, M., G. Jaccard, and A. Kondylis: Considerations for Comparative Tobacco Product Assessments Based on Smoke Constituent Yields; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 73 (2015) 105–113.10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.06.017Search in Google Scholar

13. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 5725-6:1994/Cor 1:2001 - Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and Results – Part 6: Use in Practice of Accuracy Values – Technical Corrigendum 1; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2001.Search in Google Scholar

14. Teillet, B., X. Cahours, T. Verron, S. Colard, and S.W. Purkis: Comparison of Smoke Yield Data Collected from Different Laboratories; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 25 (2013) 662–670. DOI: 10.2478/cttr-2013-094310.2478/cttr-2013-0943Search in Google Scholar

15. Bland, J. M. and D. G. Altman: Multiple Significance Tests: The Bonferroni Method; Brit. Med. J. 310 (1995) 170. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.310.6973.17010.1136/bmj.310.6973.17025485617833759Search in Google Scholar

16. Holm, S.: A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure; Scand. J. Statist. 6 (1979) 65–70.Search in Google Scholar

17. Levin, B.: On the Holm, Simes, and Hochberg Multiple Test Procedures; Am. J. Public Health 86 (1996) 628–629.10.2105/AJPH.86.5.628Search in Google Scholar

18. Aickin, M. and H. Gensler: Adjusting for Multiple Testing When Reporting Research Results: The Bonferroni vs. Holm Methods; Am. J. Public Health 86 (1996) 726–728.10.2105/AJPH.86.5.726Search in Google Scholar

19. Benjamini, Y. and Y. Hochberg: Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing; J. Royal Statist. Soc. B 57 (1995) 289–300.10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.xSearch in Google Scholar

20. Benjamini, Y. and D. Yekutieli: The Control of the False Discovery Rate in Multiple Testing Under Dependency; Ann. Statist. 29 (2001) 1165–1188.10.1214/aos/1013699998Search in Google Scholar