Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26567255›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2015

Systematic critical review of previous economic evaluations of smoking cessation during pregnancy.

Matthew Jones, Sarah Lewis, Steve Parrott, Tim Coleman

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Australian Women's Perspectives on Preventing Postpartum Relapse or Quitting Smoking or Vaping in the Postpartum Year.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Challenges in economic evaluations in obstetric care: a scoping review and expert opinion.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2020
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew JonesDivision of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Sarah LewisDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Steve ParrottDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Tim ColemanDivision of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
University of Nottingham · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

British Heart FoundationCancer Research UKDepartment of Health RP-PG-0109-10020Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify and critically assess previous economic evaluations of smoking cessation interventions delivered during pregnancy.

designQualitative review of studies with primary data collection or hypothetical modelling. Quality assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies checklist. DATA SOURCES: Electronic search of 13 databases including Medline, Econlit, Embase, and PubMed, and manual search of the UK's National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines and US Surgeon General. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: All study designs considered if they were published in English, evaluated a cessation intervention delivered to pregnant women during pregnancy, and reported any relevant economic evaluation metric (eg, cost per quitter, incremental cost per quality adjusted life year).

results18 studies were included. 18 evaluations were conducted alongside clinical trials, four were part of observational studies, five were hypothetical decision-analytic models and one combined modelling with within-trial analysis. Analyses conducted were cost-offset (nine studies), cost-effectiveness (five studies), cost-utility (two studies), and combined cost-effectiveness and cost-utility (two studies). Six studies each were identified as high, fair and poor quality, respectively. All interventions were demonstrated to be cost-effective except motivational interviewing which was dominated by usual care (one study). Areas where the current literature was limited were the robust investigation of uncertainty, including time horizons that included outcomes beyond the end of pregnancy, including major morbidities for the mother and her infant, and incorporating better estimates of postpartum relapse.

conclusionsThere are relatively few high quality economic evaluations of cessation interventions during pregnancy. The majority of the literature suggests that such interventions offer value for money; however, there are methodological issues that require addressing, including investigating uncertainty more robustly, utilising better estimates for postpartum relapse, extending beyond a within-pregnancy time horizon, and including major morbidities for the mother and her infant for within-pregnancy and beyond.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansPregnancyPrenatal CareSmoking CessationHEALTH ECONOMICSPRIMARY CARESTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODSSYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Identifiers

PMID26567255
PMCPMC4654362
OpenAlexW2195102043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.