ReviewAddiction (Abingdon, England)2009
How confident should we be that smoking cessation treatments work?
Review in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Economic evaluation of smoking-cessation therapies: a critical and systematic review of simulation models.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Pooled it
- Effectiveness of over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy: a qualitative review of nonrandomized trials.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2011Pooled it
- Do point prevalence and prolonged abstinence measures produce similar results in smoking cessation studies? A systematic review.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2010Pooled it
- Brief, instructional smokeless tobacco use among cigarette smokers who do not intend to quit: a pilot randomized clinical trial.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2014Trial
- Nicotine therapy sampling to induce quit attempts among smokers unmotivated to quit: a randomized clinical trial.Archives of internal medicine · 2011Trial
- The Role of Physiotherapists in Smoking Cessation Management: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The genetics of addiction-a translational perspective.Translational psychiatry · 2012Review
- Clinical practice. Treating smokers in the health care setting.The New England journal of medicine · 2011Review
- Electronic cigarettes: a review of safety and clinical issues.Journal of addiction medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo determine (i) the concordance among recent meta-analyses about which treatments for smoking cessation are efficacious; (ii) the similarity of odds ratios (ORs) across meta-analyses; and (iii) among the validated treatments, the proportion of studies that found higher quit rates.
methodsComputerized literature search for meta-analyses during the last 5 years in PubMed and PsychInfo. Data were extracted from summary tables of overall effect of validated treatments.
resultsFourteen meta-analyses agreed 100% on the presence/absence of efficacy of 17 proven treatments. The ORs differed by <0.5 in 72/76 of the comparisons of meta-analyses. Among 37 comparisons in 33 comparisons, >85% of the studies reported numerical superiority for the active treatment.
conclusionsThe efficacy of treatments for smoking cessation are extremely reliable. This argues for inclusion of treatment as an essential feature of tobacco control and clinical practice and argues for reimbursement of smoking cessation treatments on a par with other medical and behavioral disorders.
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.