ReviewPharmacoEconomics1993
Economic implications of smoking cessation therapies: a review of economic appraisals.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation self-help intervention for dual users of tobacco cigarettes and E-cigarettes: Intervention development and research design.Contemporary clinical trials · 2017Trial
- A randomized clinical trial of self-help intervention for smoking cessation: research design, interventions, and baseline data.Contemporary clinical trials · 2014Trial
- Smoking behavior, attitudes, and cessation counseling among healthcare professionals in Armenia.BMC public health · 2012Article
- A review of economic evaluations of tobacco control programs.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a paucity of studies on the economics of smoking cessation. Those undertaken have investigated only a narrow range of available interventions, using variable methodologies which make interstudy comparisons problematical. There is a need for more economic appraisal in this area and for greater consistency in the methodologies employed. Growing evidence on the effectiveness of pharmacotherapies has not been matched by evidence of their cost effectiveness, and studies in this area, particularly on transdermal nicotine, are urgently required. Cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) have focused on programmes targeted at pregnant women and indicate that resource savings, mainly from reductions in the number of low birthweight neonates, can exceed the costs of the measures. Efforts to persuade pregnant women to quit thus appear to be highly cost beneficial, but further evidence on the efficiency of measures targeted at other groups or to the general population of smokers is required. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) suggest that measures targeted at specific groups are more cost effective than those targeted at the general population of smokers, and that the cost effectiveness of such programmes is further improved by providing educational materials that are specific to the targeted groups. Advice on how to maintain abstinence appears to improve the cost effectiveness of help with quitting, and routine advice from physicians to their smoking patients is a cost-effective way of reducing smoking prevalence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.