Behavioural programmes for cigarette smoking cessation: investigating interactions between behavioural, motivational, and delivery components in a systematic review and component network meta‐analysis

Addiction ◽  
2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie Hartmann‐Boyce ◽  
José M. Ordóñez‐Mena ◽  
Jonathan Livingstone‐Banks ◽  
Thomas R. Fanshawe ◽  
Nicola Lindson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Cigarette Smoking ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Smoking cessation in individuals who use vaping as compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e044222
Author(s):  
Catherine M Pound ◽  
Jennifer Zhe Zhang ◽  
Ama Tweneboa Kodua ◽  
Margaret Sampson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Cigarette Smoking ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Smoking Reduction ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesDespite the aggressive marketing of electronic nicotine device systems (ENDS) as smoking cessation tools, the evidence of their effectiveness is mixed. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of ENDS on cigarette smoking cessation, as compared with other types of nicotine replacement therapies (NRT).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, the CENTRAL Trials Registry of the Cochrane Collaboration using the Ovid interface, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform trials registries were searched through 17 June 2020.Eligibility criteria for studiesRandomised controlled trials in which any type of ENDS was compared with any type of NRT, in traditional cigarette users.Data extraction and synthesisThe primary outcome was smoking cessation, defined as abstinence from traditional cigarette smoking for any time period, as reported in each included study, regardless of whether abstinence is self-reported or biochemically validated. Secondary outcomes included smoking reduction, harms, withdrawal and acceptance of therapy. A random-effect model was used, and data were pooled in meta-analyses where appropriate.ResultsSix studies were retained from 270. Most outcomes were judged to be at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was graded as ‘low’ or ‘very low’. Pooled results showed no difference in smoking cessation (rate ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.09), proportion of participants reducing smoking consumption (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.98), mean reduction in cigarettes smoked per day (mean difference 1.11, 95% CI −0.41 to 2.63), or harms (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), between groups.ConclusionWe found no difference in smoking cessation, harms and smoking reduction between e-cigarette and NRT users. However, the quality of the evidence was low. Further research is needed before widespread recommendations are made with regard to the use of ENDS.PROSPERO registration numberSystematic review registration number: protocol registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on February 27th, 2020; CRD42020169416.

scholarly journals Smoking cessation in individuals who use vaping as compared to traditional nicotine replacement therapies; a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Pound ◽  
Jennifer Zhang ◽  
Margaret Sampson ◽  
Ama Tweneboa Kodua
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Cigarette Smoking ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Delivery Systems ◽  
Nicotine Replacement ◽  
Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems ◽  
Nicotine Delivery ◽  
Analysis Protocol

This review assesses the effect of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) on cigarette smoking cessation as compared other types of nicotine replacement therapies.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of e-cigarettes in smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Oberndorfer ◽  
I Grabovac ◽  
S Haider ◽  
T E Dorner
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Promising Alternative ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Different Populations ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Reports of the effectiveness of e-cigarettes (ECs) for smoking cessation vary across different studies making implementation recommendations hard to attain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation. Methods PubMed, PsycInfo and Embase databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing nicotine ECs with non-nicotine ECs or with established smoking cessation interventions (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and or counselling) published between 01/01/2014 and 01/05/2019. Data from eligible studies were extracted and used for random-effects meta-analyses. Results Our literature review yielded 13190 publications with 10 studies being identified as eligible for systematic review, covering 8362 participants, and 8 for meta-analyses (n = 30 - 6006). Using the last follow-up of eligible studies, the proportion of smokers achieving abstinence was 1.67 [95CI:0.99 - 2.81] times higher in nicotine EC users compared to non-nicotine EC users. The proportion of abstinent smokers was 1.69 [95CI:1.25 - 2.27] times higher in EC users compared to participants receiving NRT. EC users showed a 2.70 [95CI:1.15 - 6.30] times higher proportion of abstinent smokers in comparison to participants solely receiving counselling. Conclusions Our analysis showed modest effects of nicotine-ECs compared to non-nicotine ECs. When compared to NRT or counselling, results suggest that nicotine EC may be more effective for smoking cessation. As ECs also help maintaining routinized behaviour and social aspects of smoking, we hypothesise that this may explain their advantage as a tool for smoking cessation. However, given the small number of included studies, different populations, heterogeneous designs, and the overall moderate to low quality of evidence, it is not possible to offer clear recommendations. More comparable data is needed to strengthen confidence in the quality of evidence. Key messages The number of previous studies assessing the effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation is limited. Further, comparability of these studies is restricted, weakening the quality of evidence. Although current evidence on the effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation is inconclusive, our meta-analyses suggest that ECs could be a promising alternative tool in attempts to achieve abstinence.

scholarly journals Smoking Cessation Interventions for Patients with Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Gierisch ◽  
Lori A. Bastian ◽  
Patrick S. Calhoun ◽  
Jennifer R. McDuffie ◽  
John W. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Meta Analysis

Predictors of Cigarette Smoking Cessation in Adolescents: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amandine Vallata ◽  
Jennifer O'Loughlin ◽  
Semanur Cengelli ◽  
François Alla
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Cigarette Smoking
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document