Trial reportPsychopharmacology2006
Preferences among four combination nicotine treatments.
Trial report in Psychopharmacology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of in vivo NRT sampling on smoking abstinence and NRT adherence: A randomized clinical trial.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2024Trial
- A mechanistic test of nicotine replacement therapy sampling for smoking cessation induction.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2015Trial
- Smoking cessation during alcohol treatment: a randomized trial of combination nicotine patch plus nicotine gum.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2009Trial
- Practice Quit Attempts: Scoping Review of a Novel Intervention Strategy.Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
- Review
- Smoking cessation and lung cancer: oncology nurses can make a difference.Seminars in oncology nursing · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleAcute nicotine replacement treatments (NRTs) are disliked or misused, leading to insufficient nicotine intake and poor outcome. Patches provide steady nicotine but are slow and passive. Combining systems may improve efficacy with acute NRTs tailored for compliance.
objectiveTo test initial reactions to and use preferences among combinations of NRTs. MATERIALS AND
methodsSmokers (n=27) tested four combination NRTs in a 5-day crossover trial: 2/4-mg gum + 15-mg patch (G/P), 2/4-mg lozenges + 15-mg patch (L/P), inhaler + 15-mg patch (I/P), and 10 mg + 15-mg patches (P/P). Subjects rated an NRT combination each day after 5-6 h of use and ranked among the NRTs after testing all treatments.
resultsDouble-patches (P/P) were ranked highest for "ease of use", "safety", and "use in public". However, for "help to quit", 70% preferred some form of acute-patch combination (A/P) compared to 30% choosing P/P. For "use under stress" (an immediate need), 93% preferred A/P systems compared to 7% choosing P/P. L/P ranked lowest for "ease of use", I/P and L/P were lowest on "safety", and I/P ranked lowest for "use in public". Expectations of NRTs changed with test experience for patches (better) and lozenges (worse).
conclusionsIn brief testing, all combinations were acceptable. P/P was favored for ease, safety, and public use, but a majority chose A/P systems for help in quitting and use under stress. Combined use is viable and needs to be made known and accessible to smokers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16896965What 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.