SynthesisTobacco control2007
Effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Tobacco control, 2007. 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.
- Impact of a brief motivational smoking cessation intervention the Get PHIT randomized controlled trial.American journal of preventive medicine · 2009Trial
- Immediate and short-term impact of a brief motivational smoking intervention using a biomedical risk assessment: the Get PHIT trial.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2009Trial
- Self-Reported Smoking Status 10-Months After a Single Session Intervention Including an Education Conference About Smoking Harms and Announcement of Spirometric Lung-Age.Clinical medicine insights. Circulatory, respiratory and pulmonary medicine · 2021Article
- Effect of telling patients their "spirometric-lung-age" on smoking cessation in Japanese smokers.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Article
- Pregnant Women's Experiences and Views on an "Opt-Out" Referral Pathway to Specialist Smoking Cessation Support: A Qualitative Evaluation.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2016Article
- Patient compliance based on genetic medicine: a literature review.Journal of community genetics · 2014Article
- Responses to online GSTM1 genetic test results among smokers related to patients with lung cancer: a pilot study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2009Article
- A general framework for the evaluation of clinical trial quality.Reviews on recent clinical trials · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment (eg, exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer) as an aid for smoking cessation. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline (1966-2004) and EMBASE (1980-2004). STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled smoking cessation interventions using biomedical tests with at least 6 months follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened all search results (titles and abstracts) for possible inclusion. Each reviewer then extracted data from the selected studies, and assessed their methodological quality based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 4049 retrieved references, eight trials were retained for data extraction and analysis. Three trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following ORs and 95% CIs: 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41) and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Measurement of exhaled CO and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.60 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25) and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR (95% CI) of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42). Ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed on light smokers gave an OR (95% CI) of 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31).
conclusionsScarcity and limited quality of the current evidence does not support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation as compared with the standard treatment.
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.