INTRODUCTION Heated tobacco products (HTPs) have been advertised as "reduced-harm" tobacco products compared to conventional cigarettes (CC); however, no direct evidence supporting HTPs being desirable for human health exists. A previous systematic review reported that evidence on HTPs published in 2017 or earlier was primarily drawn from industry-related papers. We aimed to investigate whether tobacco industry-affiliated studies are more likely to conclude that HTPs are more desirable than CC. METHODS PubMed and Ichushi-Web were searched up to March 15, 2022, for studies on HTPs published in 2017 or after. We selected studies that assessed any measures of HTPs and CC, including secondary analyses using gray literature in English or Japanese. We excluded review articles except for a meta-analysis that met the aforementioned criteria. Data on the authors' affiliations, grant, conflict of interest, category of research subjects, and interpretation were extracted. Research members in two groups independently assessed the papers; discrepancies were solved by discussion between the groups. RESULTS Overall, 134 studies met the criteria. Eighty-seven (64.9%) of them were affiliated with the tobacco industry. Of the 134 studies, 56.3% (49/87) of the industry-affiliated studies versus 19.1% (9/47) of nonindustry-affiliated studies concluded that HTPs were more desirable than CC (p < .01). No study investigated clinically relevant outcomes, such as disease occurrence. CONCLUSIONS Publications on HTPs in the biomedical literature from January 2017 to March 2022 were dominated by tobacco industry-affiliated studies. More than half of them concluded that HTPs were more desirable than CC compared to independent studies. IMPLICATIONS Tobacco industry advertises HTPs as "reduced-harm" tobacco products compared to CC. HTP users tend to consider HTPs as alternative tobacco products less harmful than CC (ie, products for "harm reduction"). Our results demonstrated that papers written by tobacco industry-affiliated authors concluded that HTPs were more desirable than CC compared to papers by independent authors. However, all their judgments were based on surrogate outcomes. Surrogate outcomes are not necessarily linked to clinically relevant outcomes such as disease occurrence. Further studies on HTPs using clinically relevant outcomes are warranted by independent authors from tobacco industry.

中文翻译：

---

关于加热烟草产品与传统香烟的出版物比较以及根据烟草行业隶属关系对产品的隐含需求：系统评价。

简介 与传统卷烟 (CC) 相比，加热烟草产品 (HTP) 被宣传为“危害减少”烟草产品；然而，没有直接证据支持 HTP 对人类健康有益。之前的系统综述报告称，2017 年或更早发表的 HTP 证据主要来自行业相关论文。我们的目的是调查烟草业附属研究是否更有可能得出 HTP 比 CC 更可取的结论。方法 PubMed 和 Ichushi-Web 检索截至 2022 年 3 月 15 日的关于 2017 年或之后发表的 HTP 的研究。我们选择了评估 HTP 和 CC 任何指标的研究，包括使用英语或日语灰色文献进行二次分析。除了符合上述标准的荟萃分析之外，我们排除了评论文章。提取了有关作者的隶属关系、资助、利益冲突、研究主题类别和解释的数据。两组研究人员独立评估论文；通过小组之间的讨论解决了分歧。结果 总体而言，134 项研究符合标准。其中 87 人（64.9%）与烟草业有关联。在 134 项研究中，56.3% (49/87) 的行业相关研究和 19.1% (9/47) 的非行业相关研究得出结论认为 HTP 比 CC 更可取 (p < .01)。没有研究调查临床相关结果，例如疾病发生。结论 2017 年 1 月至 2022 年 3 月，生物医学文献中有关 HTP 的出版物主要以烟草业相关研究为主。超过一半的人得出结论，与独立研究相比，HTP 比 CC 更可取。影响 烟草业将 HTP 宣传为与 CC 相比“危害减少”的烟草产品。HTP 用户倾向于将 HTP 视为比 CC 危害更小的替代烟草产品（即“减少危害”产品）。我们的结果表明，与独立作者的论文相比，烟草行业附属作者撰写的论文得出的结论是，HTP 比 CC 更可取。然而，他们的所有判断都是基于替代结果。替代结果不一定与疾病发生等临床相关结果相关。烟草行业的独立作者有必要利用临床相关结果对 HTP 进行进一步研究。