ReviewCureus2021
Looking Back and Going Forward: Roles of Varenicline and Electronic Cigarettes in Smoking Cessation.
Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health impacts of electronic nicotine delivery systems: an umbrella review of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Reverse spin bias: preliminary observations of reporting bias in medical systematic reviews.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tobacco use is the single largest preventable cause of death in the United States (US). The national goal of reducing the prevalence of adult cigarette smoking to 12% was retained for 20 years due to non-attainment. Meanwhile, varenicline and electronic cigarettes (ECs) became available in the US in 2006 and 2007, respectively, and have been used by many smokers wanting to quit. The purpose of this review is to compare varenicline and ECs in terms of efficacy for smoking cessation after over a decade of widespread use in the US. Data collection for systematic review and qualitative synthesis by a PubMed search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelinesand the Oxford Quality Scale, respectively, was performed in June 2018 and updated in June 2020. Articles were eligible if published in English as original research in the form of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), a systematic review and meta-analysis, a systematic review, or a cross-sectional study. Eighteen studies were included: nine RCTs, four cross-sectional studies, two meta-analyses, one systematic review, one systematic review and meta-analysis, and one cohort study. No head-to-head RCT compared varenicline to ECs. In four RCTs, varenicline was more effective than placebo for smoking cessation. In two RCTs, ECs were more effective than placebo but a meta-analysis of 20 studies reported a statistically significant decrease in the odds of quitting smoking using ECs as compared to placebo. To conclude, varenicline and ECs have data suggesting efficacy for smoking cessation; however, unlike varenicline, ECs were not effective in all studies.
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.