ReviewTobacco prevention & cessation2026
Effectiveness of nurse-run smoking cessation discussions lasting up to 90 minutes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Tobacco prevention & cessation, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIt is important that nurses are active in smoking cessation. We studied if cessation discussions by nurses, lasting up to 90 minutes, lead to cessation of smoking.
methodsA literature search was made from The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE. Randomized controlled trials on smoking cessation of adult daily smokers by nurses published from January 1983 to December 2023 were searched with the following defining of intervention: at least once face-to-face contact, a maximum of five contacts, total counselling time of ≤90 minutes, no concurrent cessation medication or physician input. Controls had no nurse counselling. The restricted maximum-likelihood method was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) without adjustment for individual trials and to estimate the pooled effect. RoB 2 tool was used to assess the bias.
resultsSeven studies involving 4443 smokers were included. All studies presented some risk of bias, and three were judged to have high overall risk of bias. The pooled analyses favored the controls but without a statistically significant effect at 12 months, biochemically validated abstinence (4295 smokers, six studies, OR=1.22; 95% CI: 0.83-1.80) and self-reported abstinence (3396 smokers, five studies, OR=1.02; 95% CI: 0.65-1.61). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (I
conclusionsOur results of studies on nurse-run counselling lasting ≤90 minutes did not demonstrate effectiveness in promoting smoking cessation. This should be considered while organizing cessation care. Instead, smokers who are interested in using cessation medication should be given more time and offered the possibility to participate in cessation group counselling. Given that many participants in the included studies had long smoking histories and smoking-related illnesses, future RCTs should examine nurse-run cessation interventions in populations with shorter smoking histories and fewer comorbidities.
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.