ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2021
Mobile, Remote, and Individual Focused: Comparing Breath Carbon Monoxide Readings and Abstinence Between Smartphone-Enabled and Stand-Alone Monitors.
Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cessation classification likelihood increases with higher expired-air carbon monoxide cutoffs: a meta-analysis.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2021Pooled it
- Therapeutic contact intensity as an adjunct to a cognitive behavioral smoking cessation app: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2026Trial
- Comparison of remote to hybrid methods on recruitment and retention rates in a smoking cessation trial.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2026Trial
- Evidence-based practices are effective in increasing smoke-free home rules among Black women who smoke.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2025Trial
- Impacto - A single-arm open-label pilot trial of a digital-based integrated smoking cessation program for Spanish-speaking Hispanic individuals who smoke: Development, feasibility, engagement, and clinical outcomes.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2025Trial
- Effects of in vivo NRT sampling on smoking abstinence and NRT adherence: A randomized clinical trial.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Comparison of the Bluetooth iCOquit, piCO, and Vitalograph for the assessment of breath carbon monoxide among adults initiating smoking cessation and standardized canisters.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2023Trial
- Proactive Electronic Visits for Smoking Cessation and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Screening in Primary Care: Randomized Controlled Trial of Feasibility, Acceptability, and Efficacy.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Remote clinical trial to test mechanisms of 'practice quitting' treatment: Trial design and methodological report.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
- Switching behavior and changes in smoking behavior by menthol cigarette preference and menthol heated tobacco product use among adults in the United States who smoke cigarettes: an actual use study.Harm reduction journal · 2025Article
- Effect of Flavored on! Nicotine Pouch Products on Smoking Behaviors: Protocol for a Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Remote Carbon Monoxide Capture via REDCap: Evaluation of an Integrated Mobile Application.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024Article
- Will the promise of translational neuropsychopharmacology research ever deliver? The lion's roar; the kitten's purr.NPP - digital psychiatry and neuroscience · 2024Review
- Effect of unguided e-cigarette provision on uptake, use, and smoking cessation among adults who smoke in the USA: a naturalistic, randomised, controlled clinical trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Pilot trial of QuitBet: A digital social game that pays you to stop smoking.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Comparing video observation to electronic topography device as a method for measuring cigarette puffing behavior.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionNewly available, smartphone-enabled carbon monoxide (CO) monitors are lower in cost than traditional stand-alone monitors and represent a marked advancement for smoking research. New products are promising, but data are needed to compare breath CO readings between smartphone-enabled and stand-alone monitors. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the agreement between the mobile iCO (Bedfont Scientific Ltd) with two other monitors from the same manufacturer (Micro+ pro and Micro+ basic) and (2) determine optimal, monitor-specific, cotinine-confirmed abstinence cutoff values.
methodsAdult (≥18) smokers (n = 26) and nonsmokers (n = 21) provided three breath CO samples (using three different monitors) in each of 10 sessions, and urine cotinine was measured for gold standard determination of abstinence. CO comparisons (N = 437) were analyzed using regression-based Bland-Altman Analysis of Agreement; receiver operating characteristics curves were used to determine optimal abstinence cutoffs.
resultsBland-Altman analyses indicated that the iCO monitor provided higher CO results than both Micro+ monitors. Sensitivity and specificity analyses showed that the optimal CO cutoff for determining abstinence was <3 ppm for the Micro+ pro (88% sensitivity, 93% specificity) and Micro+ basic (83% sensitivity, 98% specificity), but was higher for the iCO (<6 ppm; 73% sensitivity, 100% specificity).
conclusionsRelative to both Micro+ monitors, the smartphone-enabled iCO provided systematically higher CO values and required a higher cutoff to reliably determine smoking abstinence. This does not indicate that CO values obtained using the iCO are not valid; instead, these results suggest that monitor-specific abstinence cutoffs are needed to ensure accurate bioverification of smoking status. IMPLICATIONS: Results from this study indicate that CO values from the smartphone-enabled iCO should not be used interchangeably with the stand-alone Micro+ pro and Micro+ basic, particularly when lower CO values (<10 ppm) are critical (ie, determination of abstinence vs confirming smoking status for study inclusion). Optimal CO cutoffs recommended for determining abstinence on Micro+ and iCO monitors are at <3 and <6 ppm, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.