Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32043675›Full record

SynthesisAddiction (Abingdon, England)2020

Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nicola Black, Maarten C Eisma, Wolfgang Viechtbauer, Marie Johnston, Robert West, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Susan Michie, Marijn de Bruin

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 28 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors.

Nicola BlackHealth Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7933-4833
Maarten C EismaHealth Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
Wolfgang ViechtbauerDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Marie JohnstonHealth Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
Robert WestDepartment of Behavioral Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6398-0921
Jamie Hartmann-BoyceNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9898-3049
Susan MichieCentre for behavior Change, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Marijn de BruinHealth Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 18446Cancer Research UK 22962Cancer Research UK C50862/A18446Medical Research Council G0901474
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo examine variability and effectiveness of interventions provided to comparator (control) groups in smoking cessation trials.

methodsSystematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation, with or without stop-smoking medication. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for RCTs with objective outcomes measured at ≥ 6 months. Study authors were contacted to obtain comprehensive descriptions of their comparator interventions. Meta-regression analyses examined the relationships of smoking cessation rates with stop-smoking medication and behavior change techniques.

resultsOne hundred and four of 142 eligible comparator groups (n = 23 706) had complete data and were included in analyses. There was considerable variability in the number of behavior change techniques delivered [mean = 15.97, standard deviation (SD) = 13.54, range = 0-45] and the provision of smoking cessation medication (43% of groups received medication) throughout and within categories of comparator groups (e.g. usual care, brief advice). Higher smoking cessation rates were predicted by provision of medication [B = 0.334, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.030-0.638, P = 0.031] and number of behavior change techniques included (B = 0.020, 95% CI = 0.008-0.032, P < 0.001). Modelled cessation rates in comparator groups that received the most intensive support were 15 percentage points higher than those that received the least (23 versus 8%).

conclusionsInterventions delivered to comparator groups in smoking cessation randomized controlled trials vary considerably in content, and cessation rates are strongly predicted by stop-smoking medication and number of behavior change techniques delivered.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSmoking CessationSmoking Cessation AgentsSmoking Cessation AgentsBehavior change techniquescomparator groupcontrol groupmeta-analysismeta-regressionsmoking cessationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32043675
PMCPMC7496125

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.