Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28720080›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2017

Long-term effectiveness of mailed nicotine replacement therapy: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial 5-year follow-up.

Vladyslav Kushnir, Peter Selby, Laurie Zawertailo, Rachel F Tyndale, Scott T Leatherdale, John A Cunningham

Erratum issued 2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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.

NCT01429129 phase4completednot on this map

Randomized Controlled Trial of Mailed Nicotine Replacement Therapy to Canadian Smokers

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthRan2012 to 2015Enrolled1,000ConditionsSmokingArmsNicotine replacement therapy
NCT03097445 nacompletednot on this map

Long-term Effectiveness of Mailed Nicotine Replacement Therapy: A 5-year Follow-up

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthRan2017 to 2019Enrolled1,000ConditionsSmoking CessationArmsNicotine patch
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Vladyslav KushnirCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell St, Toronto, ON, M5S 2S1, Canada.
Peter SelbyCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell St, Toronto, ON, M5S 2S1, Canada.
Laurie ZawertailoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell St, Toronto, ON, M5S 2S1, Canada.
Rachel F TyndaleCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell St, Toronto, ON, M5S 2S1, Canada.
Scott T LeatherdaleSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, N2L 3G1, Canada.
John A CunninghamCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell St, Toronto, ON, M5S 2S1, Canada. john.cunningham@camh.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-0668-5982
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health · CAAustralian National University · AUUniversity of Waterloo · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur group recently completed a randomized controlled trial, evaluating the efficacy of providing 5 weeks of free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; in the form of the nicotine patch) by expedited postal mail without behavioral assistance to regular adult smokers interested in receiving it. The findings revealed that mailed provision of nicotine patches resulted in more than a doubling of quit rates at a six-month follow-up compared to a no intervention control group. While this trial provided evidence for the effectiveness of mailed nicotine patches in promoting cessation, the findings speak only to the short term effectiveness of this approach. As relapse to smoking is known to occur beyond the 6 month period, it is important to evaluate whether the net benefit of NRT in naturalistic settings can be maintained long-term. The present study aims to perform a 5-year follow-up survey of participants in the original trial to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of mailed NRT. METHODS/

designTrained interviewers will contact participants in the randomized controlled trial 5 years post-enrollment. A total of 924 participants will be eligible to be contacted. Interviewers will first assess participants' smoking status and their level of nicotine dependence. Participants reporting not currently smoking will be asked whether they have smoked tobacco, even a puff, in the last 30 days (primary outcome measure: 30-day point prevalence abstinence), past 6 months (secondary outcome measure: prolonged 6-month abstinence), and since the 8-week follow-up survey (secondary outcome measure: > 4 year continuous abstinence). Interviewers will be blind to experimental condition at the time the primary outcome measure will be assessed. It is hypothesized that participants who received nicotine patches at baseline will display significantly higher quit rates at the 5-year follow-up as compared to participants who did not receive nicotine patches at baseline. DISCUSSION: If the study finds that the mailed distribution of free NRT is effective at promoting long-term cessation, it would provide further evidence to move forward with policies designed to make NRT treatment readily and freely available to smokers who request it.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov : NCT01429129 , Registered 2 September 2011; NCT03097445 , Registered 25 March 2017.

Indexed as

Postal ServiceTobacco Use Cessation DevicesTobacco Use DisorderAdultCosts and Cost AnalysisFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleNicotineResearch DesignSmokingSmoking CessationSmoking PreventionTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeNicotineFree distributionNicotine dependenceNicotine patchesNicotine replacement therapySmokingSmoking cessationTobacco

Identifiers

PMID28720080
PMCPMC5516338
OpenAlexW2739369989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.