ReviewPublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2026
Helping teens quit: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of smoking cessation interventions.
Review in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Adolescent smoking remains a significant public health concern. Effective smoking cessation interventions tailored for adolescents are essential, yet evidence comparing different strategies remains limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of various smoking cessation interventions for adolescents using a network meta-analysis (NMA) approach. Study design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from their inception to February 28, 2024. Randomized controlled trials comparing smoking cessation interventions for adolescents were included if they reported biochemical verification of smoking abstinence. Two pairs of researchers independently conducted the study selection. NMA was performed using a random-effects model in a frequentist framework. The quality of the included studies was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. (PROSPERO CRD420251001010). Results: Twelve studies were included. No intervention demonstrated clear superiority over usual care or other comparators. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based, CBT combined with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and Non-NRT interventions showed higher short-term abstinence (≤6 months) compared with usual care (UC), with relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of 2.31 (95%CI: 1.59-3.35), 2.44 (95%CI: 1.16-5.16), and 1.57 (95%CI: 1.09-2.28), respectively. However, these findings were based on very low-certainty evidence and were not sustained at longer follow-up. Conclusions: The evidence base for adolescent smoking cessation is limited and heterogeneous. While some interventions may offer short-term benefits, there is no robust evidence of sustained effectiveness beyond six months. High-quality trials are needed to establish effective long-term strategies.
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.