Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23454876›Full record

Trial reportAddictive behaviors2013

Comparative effectiveness of the nicotine lozenge and tobacco-free snuff for smokeless tobacco reduction.

Jon O Ebbert, Herbert H Severson, Ivana T Croghan, Brian G Danaher, Darrell R Schroeder

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Addictive behaviors, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT01018394 phase2 / phase3completednot on this map

A Pilot Study to Compare the Nicotine Lozenge and Tobacco-Free Snuff for Smokeless Tobacco Reduction

TypeinterventionalSponsorMayo ClinicRan2009 to 2012Enrolled81ConditionsTobacco DependenceArmsnicotine lozenges, tobacco-free snuff
NCT07013084 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Study on the Effect of Digital Smoking Cessation Education Intervention on Outpatients

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational Taiwan Normal UniversityRan2020 to 2023Enrolled100ConditionsSmoking CessationArms3D VR smoking cessation program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Smokeless tobacco cessation interventions: A systematic review.The Indian journal of medical research · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. A randomized phase II clinical trial of high-dose nicotine patch therapy for smokeless tobacco users.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2013
    Trial
  6. Review
  7. The Effect of Tobacco Control Policies on US Smokeless Tobacco Use: A Structured Review.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jon O EbbertMayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. ebbert.jon@mayo.edu
Herbert H Severson
Ivana T Croghan
Brian G Danaher
Darrell R Schroeder

Funding

Research Support CoreP30DA012393 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ST.HELEN, GIDEON · 1999 to 2024
$17.1M
Evaluating Nicoting Lozenges for Treatment of Smokeless Tobacco AddictionR01CA121165 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI EBBERT, JON O. · 2006 to 2009
$2.0M
Liquid Chromatograph-Triple Quadrupole Mass SpectrometerS10RR026437 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI JACOB, PEYTON · 2010 to 2010
$448k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA121165NCRR NIH HHS S10 RR026437NIDA NIH HHS P30 DA012393
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Long-term smokeless tobacco (ST) use is associated with cardiovascular disease and cancer, but not all ST users want to quit. Previous studies have evaluated the effectiveness of nicotine lozenges and tobacco-free snuff for reducing ST use among ST users not ready to quit, but no comparative effectiveness trials of these two products have been conducted. We conducted a multicenter, randomized clinical pilot study evaluating the comparative effectiveness of the 4-mg nicotine lozenge and tobacco-free snuff for reducing ST use and increasing tobacco abstinence among ST users with no intention of quitting in the next 30 days. Participants received 8 weeks of treatment and behavioral counseling on tobacco reduction strategies with follow-up to 26 weeks. We randomized 81 participants (40 nicotine lozenges, 41 tobacco-free snuff). No significant differences in reduction were observed between the two groups at weeks 8, 12, and 26. No significant differences were observed between groups in nicotine withdrawal or tobacco craving. However, both groups significantly reduced (p<.001) ST use in cans/week and dips/day from baseline which was sustained through the end-of-study. The observed biochemically-confirmed abstinence rates at week 26 were similar between groups (12% vs. 12%, one-tailed p=.615). The 4-mg nicotine lozenge and the tobacco-free snuff both appear to be effective and comparable for reducing ST use among ST users not ready to quit in the next 30 days.

Indexed as

Tobacco, SmokelessTobacco Use Cessation DevicesAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsSubstance Withdrawal SyndromeTobacco Use CessationTobacco Use DisorderYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23454876
PMCPMC3595368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.