In Reply: I thank my colleagues for their comments on my recent Research Letter.1 Given space constraints, I will focus on their 3 main critiques.
The critique that findings were premature as they relied on a single data point was noted by Maa and Gardiner as well as Leas but has a false premise. Regressions used data on 95 843 high school students (2097 from San Francisco, California, in 2019) to estimate a difference-in-differences research design assessing whether smoking trends among San Francisco minors enrolled in high school diverged from students in comparison districts after the flavor ban. Covariates adjusted for respondent demographics, other tobacco policies, time-invariant differences between districts, and common time trends (eg, accounting for changes in electronic nicotine delivery system technology). While this provides a short-run estimate, it is by no means based on a single data point.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Friedman AS. Further Considerations on the Association Between Flavored Tobacco Legislation and High School Student Smoking Rates—Reply. JAMA Pediatr. Published online September 13, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.3293
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.