Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16437517›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Interventions for tobacco cessation in the dental setting.

A B Carr, J O Ebbert

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interventions for tobacco cessation delivered by dental professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Interventions for tobacco cessation in the dental setting.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  3. Interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Reimbursing dentists for smoking cessation treatment: views from dental insurers.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2012
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Oral cancer preventive practices of South Carolina dentists and physicians.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2010
    Article
  18. Tobacco cessation via doctors of chiropractic: results of a feasibility study.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2010
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A B CarrMayo Clinic College of Medicine, Department of Dental Specialties, 200 1st Street Southwest, MN 55905, USA. carr.alan@mayo.edu
J O Ebbert
Mayo Clinic · USWinnMed · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTobacco use has significant adverse effects on oral health. Oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting have a unique opportunity to increase tobacco abstinence rates among tobacco users.

objectivesThis review assesses the effectiveness of interventions for tobacco cessation offered to cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users in the dental office or community setting. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction group Specialized Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966-2004), EMBASE (1988-2004), CINAHL (1982-2004), Healthstar (1975-2004), ERIC (1967-2004), PsycINFO (1984-2004), National Technical Information Service database (NTIS, 1964-2004), Dissertation Abstracts Online (1861-2004), Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE, 1995-2004), and Web of Science (1993-2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and pseudo-randomized clinical trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions conducted by oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting with at least six months of follow up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed abstracts for potential inclusion and abstracted data from included trials. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. MAIN

resultsSix clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of interventions in the dental office or a school community setting. All studies assessed the efficacy of interventions for smokeless tobacco users, one of which included cigarettes smokers. All studies employed behavioural interventions and only one offered pharmacotherapy as an interventional component. All studies included an oral examination component. Pooling of the studies suggested that interventions conducted by oral health professionals increase tobacco abstinence rates (odds ratio [OR] 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16 to 1.78) at 12 months or longer. Heterogeneity was evident (I(2) = 75%) and could not be adequately explained through subgroup or sensitivity analyses. AUTHORS'

conclusionsAvailable evidence suggests that behavioural interventions for tobacco use conducted by oral health professionals incorporating an oral examination component in the dental office and community setting may increase tobacco abstinence rates among smokeless tobacco users. Differences between the studies limit the ability to make conclusive recommendations regarding the intervention components that should be incorporated into clinical practice.

Indexed as

CounselingDental OfficesTobacco, SmokelessHumansOral HealthRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTobacco Use Cessation

Identifiers

PMID16437517
OpenAlexW4252726222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.