Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40748216›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2025

Cessation of smoking in people attending UK emergency departments: the COSTED RCT with economic and process evaluation.

Ian Pope, Lucy V Clark, Allan Clark, Emma Ward, Pippa Belderson, Susan Stirling, Steve Parrott, Jinshuo Li, Timothy Coats, Linda Bauld and 8 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. 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

18 authors.

Ian PopeNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5623-4178
Lucy V ClarkNorwich Clinical Trials Unit, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7162-0512
Allan ClarkNorwich Clinical Trials Unit, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2965-8941
Emma WardNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7579-3215
Pippa BeldersonNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2065-6878
Susan StirlingNorwich Clinical Trials Unit, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6663-7846
Steve ParrottDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0165-1150
Jinshuo LiDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1496-7450
Timothy CoatsDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2736-2784
Linda BauldUsher Institute and SPECTRUM Consortium, College of Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7411-4260
Richard HollandUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4663-6923
Sarah GentryNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0805-0200
Sanjay AgrawalUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7873-0300
Benjamin M BloomRoyal London Hospital, Barts NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3016-4925
Adrian BoyleAddenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9009-5423
Alasdair GrayRoyal Infirmary Edinburgh, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1460-8327
M Geraint MorrisHomerton University Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8019-1510
Caitlin NotleyNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0876-3304

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The emergency department represents a potentially valuable opportunity to support smoking cessation. Evidence is lacking around the use of e-cigarettes in opportunistic settings like the emergency department. Objective: To undertake a randomised controlled trial in people who smoke attending United Kingdom emergency departments, testing a brief intervention which included provision of an e-cigarette versus signposting to smoking cessation services, assessing smoking abstinence. Design: A two-arm pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised, controlled superiority trial with an internal pilot, economic evaluation and mixed-methods process evaluation. Setting: Six emergency departments across England and Scotland. Participants: Adults who smoked daily, who were attending the emergency department for medical treatment or accompanying someone attending for medical treatment, were invited to participate. People were excluded if they had an expired carbon monoxide of < 8 parts per million, required immediate medical treatment, were in police custody, had a known allergy to nicotine, were daily e-cigarette users, were considered not to have capacity to consent or had already taken part in the trial. Intervention: Brief stop smoking advice, e-cigarette starter kit and referral to stop smoking services. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was biochemically validated sustained abstinence at 6 months. Those lost to follow-up, or not providing biochemical verification, were considered not to be abstinent. Secondary outcomes were: self-reported 7-day smoking abstinence, number of quit attempts, number of cigarettes per day, nicotine dependence and incidence of self-reported dry cough or mouth or throat irritation. Results: At 6 months, of 972 participants randomised, biochemically verified smoking abstinence was 7.2% in the intervention group and 4.1% in the control group (percentage difference = 3.3%) (95% confidence interval 0.3 to 6.3; Limitations: The inability to blind participants or researchers, the relatively low level of biochemical verification due to the nature of the population recruited and the fact that those in the control group did not receive usual care. Conclusions: An opportunistic smoking cessation intervention comprising brief advice, an e-cigarette starter kit and referral to stop smoking services is effective for sustained smoking abstinence with few reported adverse events. Future work: Future work will include testing other behaviour change interventions in the emergency department and adapting the Cessation of Smoking Trial in the emergency department intervention for other settings. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR129438.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsEmergency Service, HospitalSmoking CessationAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedScotlandUnited KingdomEMERGENCY MEDICINERANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALSMOKING CESSATIONTOBACCO USE DISORDERS

Identifiers

PMID40748216
PMCPMC12376004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.