ArticleTobacco induced diseases2026
The effect of motivational interviewing on smoking cessation intention in patients with lung cancer: A randomized controlled trial.
Article 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis randomized controlled trial investigated the effect of motivational interviewing (MI) on smoking cessation intention in patients diagnosed with lung cancer.
methodsPatients with lung cancer enrolled in the study were divided into intervention (n=21) and control (n=21) groups based on random sampling after power analysis. Patients in the intervention group received two MI sessions through real-time WhatsApp
resultsPost-intervention, the control group exhibited significantly lower SCIS scores than the intervention group (17.19 ± 4.7 vs 23.23 ± 4.5, p<0.001). The control group also demonstrated a significant decline in SCIS scores from pre- to post-test (22.90 ± 5.3 vs 17.19 ± 4.7, p<0.001). In the intervention group, mean FTND scores decreased substantially following MI (6.2 ± 2.5 vs 2.5 ± 2.0, p=0.012), whereas the control group showed a small, non-significant reduction in FTND scores (5.6 ± 3.1 vs 4.9 ± 3.2, p=0.178). ECOG performance scores remained stable in both groups across the study period.
conclusionsThe findings indicate that two sessions of MI delivered via real-time WhatsApp
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.