This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: The title of the article "Why Review Articles on the Health Effects of Passive Smoking Reach Different Conclusions" by Ms Barnes and Dr Bero¹ suggests that it may offer a reasoned explanation why review articles that attempt to distill diverse primary articles on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure have reached different conclusions. Unfortunately, this review of reviews contributes no new insights to advance the scientific understanding of data relating to the health effects of ETS and thus falls far short of fulfilling the promise of its title.

Barnes and Bero hypothesized a priori that the review articles concluding that ETS exposure is not associated with significant health outcomes would be of inferior quality and more likely to be written by "tobacco industry–affiliated" authors. Notably, their analysis of 106 review articles revealed that articles that concluded ETS health effects are insignificant were of no . . . [Full Text of this Article]