ReviewTobacco induced diseases2026
Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Tobacco induced diseases, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTobacco use is a major preventable cause of morbidity and mortality, and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) may address the cognitive, behavioral, and relapse-related mechanisms that sustain smoking. This review evaluated the efficacy of CBT for smoking cessation by synthesizing controlled studies reporting smoking abstinence and smoking reduction outcomes.
methodsWithin this systematic review and meta-analysis, a search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar for studies published from 1 January 2000 to 15 January 2026. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials or controlled quasi-experimental studies of people who smoked and compared CBT, delivered face-to-face or remotely, with a non-CBT control condition. Outcome data were extracted for smoking abstinence and smoking reduction. Risk-of-bias was assessed using RoB 2 for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomized controlled studies. Odds Ratios (ORs) were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models, with fixed-effect estimates used only as sensitivity analyses.
resultsFourteen studies were included. Eleven studies contributed to the smoking abstinence meta-analysis, and five contributed to the smoking reduction meta-analysis. For smoking abstinence, the random-effects pooled OR was 1.60 (95% CI: 0.95-2.70; z=1.76; p=0.078; I
conclusionsCBT showed a favorable direction of effect for smoking abstinence, but the random-effects estimate was imprecise, and heterogeneity was substantial. Evidence for smoking reduction was also not statistically conclusive. The findings should therefore be interpreted cautiously, and future trials should clarify treatment moderators, standardize outcome definitions, and refine CBT protocols for different cessation goals.
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.