Trial reportAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2023
Efficacy and Safety of Vernonia cinerea for Smoking Cessation: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of Herbal and Potassium Nitrate Toothpastes in Managing Dentin Hypersensitivity: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Vernonia cinerea (VC) and nortriptyline for smoking cessation. A randomized, active-comparator, open-label trial was conducted in 2019. A total of 84 patients participated in the study, and equally randomized with 42 participants in each group. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference of continuous abstinence rate (CAR) between VC and nortriptyline group (Odd ratio 0.68, 95%CI 0.25-1.85, P=0.451). After week 12, the end of treatment, CAR between both groups was not different (44.44% vs 45.95%, Odd ratio 0.77, 95%CI 0.23-2.54, P>0.999). After follow up by the end of research at week 24, the CAR in both groups was not different (41.67% vs 43.24%, Odd ratio 0.76, 95%CI 0.23-2.55, P>0.999). After week 24, relapse rate between VC and nortriptyline group was not different (13.89% vs 10.81%, P=0.923). In addition, both groups were effective in reducing the number of cigarettes per day compared to baseline. However, there was no difference between the groups. Overall, the VC group had an 8% smoking rate less than nortriptyline group, but not statistically significant (IRR 0.92, 95%CI 0.59-1.43, P=0.702). They also resulted in reducing the exhaled CO level at treatment period and wash out period (at week 12; 7(-17-20) vs 7(-12-16), mean difference 0.78, 95%CI -3.07-4.63, P>0.999, at week 24; 8(-5-22) vs 8.5(-5-17), mean difference 0.39, 95%CI -3.46-4.24, P>0.999). Overall, there was no difference between either group (mean difference -0.31, 95%CI -3.10-2.47). For safety data, adverse events including tongue bitter taste or numbness were found in VC group to be greater than in nortriptyline group (61.9% vs 30.95%, P=0.004), whereas dry mouth and drowsiness were greater found in nortriptyline group (35.71% vs 90.48%, P<0.001 and 16.67% vs 90.48%, P<0.001, respectively). Serious adverse events were not found. In smoking cessation, efficacy and safety of either VC or nortriptyline showed no difference.
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.