ReviewTobacco use insights2025
Quality Assessment of Guidelines on Tobacco Cessation: A Systematic Review.
Review in Tobacco use insights, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Numerous guidelines have been developed worldwide to support healthcare professionals in providing evidence-based interventions to help individuals quit smoking and other forms of tobacco use. The evaluation of the quality of the guidelines of tobacco cessation is however deficient and lacking. Methodology: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Databases were electronically searched. Additional search was carried out in National Institute for Health Care Excellence, Guidelines International Network, Google Scholar and references of relevant articles to screen studies relevant to this review. Guidelines on both health and allied health professionals in English language were included. The assessment of the guidelines in this review was carried out using the AGREE II instrument by four appraisers. Results: Twenty guidelines were included in this review. A comparative evaluation of all the guidelines revealed consistently higher scores in clarity of presentation domain (74.4 ± 20.9) followed by scope and purpose (65.23 ± 17.19), stakeholder involvement (63.84 ± 18.29) and rigour of development domain (61.76 ± 20.24). Lower scores were reported in Applicability (59.18 ± 18.02) and least in Editorial Independence domain (58.29 ± 19.36). Conclusion: Further guidelines developed should address the gaps identified in this review and be both evidence-based and feasible to implement in diverse clinical contexts.
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.