Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31193683›Full record

ArticleAddictive behaviors reports2019

Lessons learned from unsuccessful use of personal carbon monoxide monitors to remotely assess abstinence in a pragmatic trial of a smartphone stop smoking app - A secondary analysis.

Aleksandra Herbec, Jamie Brown, Lion Shahab, Robert West

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addictive behaviors reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A Scoping Review and Meta-analysis of the Use of Remote Biochemical Verification Methods of Smoking Status in Tobacco Research.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Mobile, Remote, and Individual Focused: Comparing Breath Carbon Monoxide Readings and Abstinence Between Smartphone-Enabled and Stand-Alone Monitors.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    Article
  20. Remote Methods for Conducting Tobacco-Focused Clinical Trials.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aleksandra HerbecDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Jamie BrownDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Lion ShahabDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Robert WestDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
UK Centre for Tobacco & Alcohol Studies · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 22962Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionVerifying abstinence remotely in trials of digital cessation interventions remains a major challenge. This study reports on using personal carbon monoxide (CO) monitors to assess abstinence in a pragmatic trial of a standalone cessation app involving automated recruitment with no researcher contact.

methodsThe study involved secondary data analysis of remote CO testing in a randomized trial (ISRCTN10548241) comparing two versions of a cessation app (BupaQuit). Trial participants were adult UK-based smokers interested in quitting, who were recruited online (02/2015-03/2016). Participants were followed-up through the app, email or phone at 4 weeks. Fifty-nine participants reporting not smoking were posted a personal CO monitor with instructions, and emailed two reminders. The monitors required installing software on a Windows PC. Participants were not reimbursed but retained the device. We recorded the proportion of CO tests returned, test results, self-reported ease of use, correct use, acceptability, and reasons for missing results.

resultsFifteen (25.4%) CO results were returned, of which 86.6% were <10 ppm and 53.3% were <5 ppm, indicating abstinence (corresponding to 20.9% and 12.9% of all trial participants self-reporting abstinence, respectively). These 15 participants found the test easy, acceptable and believed they conducted it correctly. Eight (18.2%) of the missing results were accounted for, including no access to a Windows PC, barriers to receiving packages, and unwillingness to share results.

conclusionRemote validation using personal CO monitors may not yet be feasible in pragmatic studies of cessation apps in which participants are recruited with no reimbursement or direct contact with researchers.

Indexed as

AppBiochemical verificationCarbon monoxideInterventionPilotSmartphoneSmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID31193683
PMCPMC6542188
OpenAlexW2884857363

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.