Trial reportWMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin2008
A comparison of the nicotine lozenge and nicotine gum: an effectiveness randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in WMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Weight gain in smokers after quitting cigarettes: meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2012Pooled it
- Pilot randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of random nicotine delivery on cigarettes per day and smoke exposure.Brain research bulletin · 2022Trial
- Single-Dose Bioequivalence of Two Mini Nicotine Lozenge Formulations.Clinical pharmacology in drug development · 2018Trial
- Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Two Nicotine Patches in Smokers.Clinical pharmacology in drug development · 2018Trial
- Pharmacokinetic characterization of three novel 4-mg nicotine lozenges .International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2018Trial
- Patient Perception of How Smoking Status Influences Cardiac Rehabilitation Attendance After an Acute Cardiac Hospitalization.Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention · 2019Article
- Planning a Change Easily (PACE): A randomized controlled trial for smokers who are not ready to quit.Contemporary clinical trials · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
contextBoth the nicotine gum and nicotine lozenge have been shown to increase smoking cessation rates, but no published trials have directly compared the two. Higher dose nicotine gum has been recommended as a treatment that may reduce cessation-related weight gain. DESIGN/OUTCOME: In a diverse urban setting, 408 participants were randomized to receive either the lozenge or the gum for 8 weeks of treatment. Seven-day point prevalence of smoking abstinence was biochemically confirmed by exhaled carbon monoxide levels of less than 10 ppm measured at 8 weeks with follow-up at 6 and 12 months.
resultsAt 8 weeks, the lozenge quit rate was 15.1% and the gum quit rate was 11.3%, with an odds ratio of 1.39, 95% confidence interval (0.78-2.49) P=0.26. These rates compare favorably to a historical spontaneous quit rate of 5%. Quit rate comparisons were similarly non-significant at 6 and 12 months. At 8 weeks, successful quitters in the lozenge group gained 3.0+/-6.3 lbs compared to the gum group, which gained 8.4+/-9.2 lbs with t=-2.4, P=0.02, but this finding was not sustained at 6 and 12 months.
conclusionsThe gum and lozenge appear equally effective for smoking cessation; however, for patients concerned about preventing cessation related to immediate weight gain, the lozenge may be the better agent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18777992PMC3174063W2273713021What 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.