Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31597207›Full record

Trial reportAddiction (Abingdon, England)2020

Cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy in stop smoking services in England (TEC study): a randomized controlled trial.

Jinshuo Li, Peter Hajek, Francesca Pesola, Qi Wu, Anna Phillips-Waller, Dunja Przulj, Katie Myers Smith, Natalie Bisal, Peter Sasieni, Lynne Dawkins and 4 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 12 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.

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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Recommendations on interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in adults in Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Guideline
  4. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Guideline
  5. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  6. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  10. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the United Kingdom Accounting for Major Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2021
    Pooled it
  11. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  12. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  13. Patterns of e-Cigarette Use and Smoking Cessation Outcomes: Secondary Analysis of a Large Randomised Controlled Trial to Inform Clinical Advice.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. E-Cigarette Use and Depression Among American Indian Adults Who Smoke.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors.

Jinshuo LiMental Health and Addiction Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1496-7450
Peter HajekQueen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9160-4296
Francesca PesolaKing's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2054-7930
Qi WuMental Health and Addiction Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8281-7799
Anna Phillips-WallerQueen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6856-6439
Dunja PrzuljQueen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1133-8835
Katie Myers SmithQueen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1837-3924
Natalie BisalQueen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5938-0349
Peter SasieniKing's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1509-8744
Lynne DawkinsLondon South Bank University, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1236-009X
Louise RossLeicester City Council, Leicester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0183-2189
Maciej Lukasz GoniewiczRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Buffalo, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6748-3068
Hayden McRobbieQueen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7777-1845
Steve ParrottMental Health and Addiction Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0165-1150

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16892Cancer Research UK 16893Cancer Research UK 25356Cancer Research UK A16893Department of Health 12/167/135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid used in routine stop smoking services in England.

designCost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective for 12-month periods and life-time. Costs, including that of both treatments, other smoking cessation help and health-care services, and health benefits, estimated from EQ-5D-5L and measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), for the 12-month analysis, came from a randomized controlled trial. Life-time analysis was model-based with input from both trial data and published secondary data sources. Cost-effectiveness was measured by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

settingThree stop-smoking service sites in England.

participantsAdult smokers (n = 886) who sought help to quit in the participating sites. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: An e-cigarette (EC) starter kit versus provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months, both with standard behavioural support. A total of 886 participants were randomized (439 in the EC arm, 447 in the NRT arm). Excluding one death in each arm, the 1-year quit rate was 18.0 and 9.9%, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: Cost of treatments was estimated from the treatment log. Costs of other smoking cessation help and health-care services and EQ-5D-5 L were collected at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Incremental costs and incremental QALYs were estimated using regression adjusting for baseline covariates and their respective baseline values.

findingsThe ICER was £1100 per QALY gained at the 12 months after quit date (87% probability below £20 000/QALY). Markov model estimated the life-time ICER of EC to be £65 per QALY (85% probability below £20 000/QALY).

conclusionUsing e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid with standard behavioural support in stop-smoking services in England is likely to be more cost-effective than using nicotine replacement therapy in the same setting.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesCost-Benefit AnalysisAdultAgedBehavior TherapyElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMarkov ChainsMiddle AgedQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSmoking CessationState MedicineTobacco Use Cessation DevicesCost-effectivenesse-cigaretteeconomic evaluationlife-time modellingMarkov modelnicotine replacement therapysmoking cessationstop smoking services

Identifiers

PMID31597207
PMCPMC7318206

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.