Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796499›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Physician advice for smoking cessation.

C Silagy

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03377738 (Randomized Clinical Trial About the Effectiveness of the Spirometry Test as a Motivational Tool for Quitting Tobacco in Primary Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03377738 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2011, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Clinical Trial About the Effectiveness of the Spirometry Test as a Motivational Tool for Quitting Tobacco in Primary Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorFundacion para la Formacion e Investigacion Sanitarias de la Region de MurciaRan2011 to 2011Enrolled90ConditionsTobacco CessationArmsspirometry
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 218 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Physician advice for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

C SilagyMonash Institute of Public Health and Health Service Research, Monash Medical Centre, Locked Bag 29, Clayton, Victoria, Australia, 3168. chris.silagy@med.monash.edu.au
Monash Institute of Medical Research · AUPrimary Health Care · QA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care professionals frequently advise patients to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.

objectivesThe aims of this review were to assess the effectiveness of advice from physicians in promoting smoking cessation; to compare minimal interventions by physicians with more intensive interventions; to assess the effectiveness of various aids to advice in promoting smoking cessation and to determine the effect of anti-smoking advice on disease specific and all cause mortality. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Date of the most recent searches: October 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of smoking cessation advice from a medical practitioner in which abstinence was assessed at least six months after advice was first provided. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the setting in which advice was given, type of advice given (minimal or intensive), and whether aids to advice were used, the outcome measures, method of randomisation and completeness of followup. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Subjects lost to follow-up were counted as smokers. Where possible, meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effects model. MAIN

resultsWe identified thirty-one trials, conducted between 1972 and 1997, including over 26,000 smokers. In some trials, subjects were at risk of specified diseases (chest disease, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease), but most were from unselected populations. The most common setting for delivery of advice was primary care. Other settings included hospital wards and outpatient clinics, and industrial clinics. Pooled data from 16 trials of brief advice versus no advice (or usual care) revealed a small but significant increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.45 to 1.98). This equates to an absolute difference in the cessation rate of about 2.5%. There was insufficient evidence, from indirect comparisons, to establish a significant difference in the effectiveness of physician advice according to the intensity of the intervention, the amount of follow-up provided, and whether or not various aids were used at the time of the consultation in addition to providing advice. However, direct comparison of intensive versus minimal advice showed a small advantage of intensive advice (odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.68). In one study which determined the effect of smoking advice on mortality at twenty years, there were no statistically significant differences in death rates in the group receiving advice. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsSimple advice has a small effect on cessation rates. Additional manoeuvres appear to have only a small effect, though more intensive interventions are marginally more effective than minimal interventions.

Indexed as

Patient Education as TopicSmoking CessationSmoking PreventionHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'

Identifiers

PMID10796499
OpenAlexW4254178913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.