Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29852054›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2018

Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation.

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Samantha C Chepkin, Weiyu Ye, Chris Bullen, Tim Lancaster

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04523948 (Comparative Tobacco Interventions for Individuals With Severe and Persisting Behavioral Health Disorders), which is not on this map. Cited by 354 papers, 32 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
354citing papers in PubMed, 32 pooled it
36.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04523948 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Comparative Tobacco Interventions for Individuals With Severe and Persisting Behavioral Health Disorders

TypeobservationalSponsorRose Research Center, LLCRan2020 to 2023Enrolled100ConditionsTobacco UseArmsBehavioral and pharmacological support to reduce combustible tobacco use.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

354 citing papers in PubMed, 32 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 707 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Recommendations on interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in adults in Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Guideline
  11. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Guideline
  12. Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Interventions for tobacco use cessation in people living with HIV.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

294 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jamie Hartmann-BoyceNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, UK, OX2 6GG.
Samantha C Chepkin
Weiyu Ye
Chris Bullen
Tim Lancaster
University of Oxford · GBCochrane · GBKing's College School · GBUniversity of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

objectivesTo determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN

resultsWe identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.

Indexed as

Tobacco Use Cessation DevicesAdministration, CutaneousAdministration, InhalationChewing GumFemaleHumansMaleNicotineNicotinic AgonistsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSmoking CessationSmoking PreventionTabletsTime FactorsChewing GumNicotineNicotinic AgonistsTablets

Identifiers

PMID29852054
PMCPMC6353172
OpenAlexW2806909877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.