ReviewPreventive medicine reports2026
Tobacco cessation strategies in military personnel: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Review in Preventive medicine reports, 2026. 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.
- Tobacco and nicotine cessation in military service members and veterans: implications for area health education centers.Journal of behavioral medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural and pharmacological tobacco cessation interventions among active-duty military personnel and veterans. Methods: We followed PRISMA guidelines to assess the efficacy of behavioural and pharmacological interventions on tobacco cessation in military populations. Randomized controlled trials were identified through PubMed (from 1966), Web of Science (from 1900), Scopus (from 1960), and the Cochrane Library/CENTRAL (from 1991) from database inception to July 2024. Random-effect models were used to estimate odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals. Results: Five randomized controlled trials involving a total of 2619 participants were included. Seven-day point prevalence abstinence was significantly increased at short-term (≤ 3 months) (OR 2.03 [95 % CI: 1.49, 2.77], low certainty) and long-term (≥ 6 months) (OR 1.53 [95 % CI: 1.12, 2.09], low certainty) follow-ups among those receiving interventions compared with controls. Subgroup analyses were conducted by type of personnel, tobacco product, intervention type, and sex. Conclusions: These findings highlight the need for stronger, accessible, and military-tailored cessation programs, particularly for veterans who show lower quit rates. Expanding high-quality randomized trials that test modern cessation approaches in diverse military populations is essential to inform future policy and clinical practice.
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.