SynthesisBMJ open2024
Interactive voice response (IVR) for tobacco cessation: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo summarise the uses, outcomes and implementation of interactive voice response (IVR) as a tobacco cessation intervention. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was conducted. Searches were performed on 3 May 2023. The strategies used keywords such as "tobacco cessation", "smoking reduction" and "interactive voice recording". Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched. Grey literature searches were also conducted. STUDY SELECTION: Titles and abstracts were assessed by two independent reviewers. Studies were included if IVR was an intervention for tobacco cessation for adults; any outcomes were reported and study design was comparative. Any abstract included by either reviewer proceeded to full-text review. Full texts were reviewed by two independent reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were independently extracted by two reviewers using a standardised form. The Risk of Bias Tool for Randomised Trials and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools were used to assess study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 308 identified abstracts, 20 moderate-quality to low-quality studies were included. IVR was used standalone or adjunctly as a treatment, follow-up or risk-assessment tool across populations including general smokers, hospitalised patients, quitline users, perinatal women, patients with cancer and veteran smokers. Effective studies found that IVR was delivered more frequently with shorter follow-up times. Significant gaps in the literature include a lack of population diversity, limited implementation settings and delivery schedules, and limited patient and provider perspectives.
conclusionsWhile the evidence is weak, IVR appears to be a promising intervention for tobacco cessation. However, pilot programmes and research addressing literature gaps are necessary.
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.