scholarly journals Intensive Smoking Cessation Interventions in Denmark - Based on data from the Danish Smoking Cessation Database

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (S3) ◽  
pp. 1-43
Author(s):  
Mette Rasmussen
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Successful Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Study Designs

Background Tobacco smoking is by far the most deadly and preventable lifestyle factor for public health, both globally and nationally. Nevertheless, it is estimated that worldwide, more than 1.1 billion adults are smokers. Today, 16% (0.8 million) of the adult population in Denmark are daily smokers, while 23% (1.1 million) consider themselves smokers, and one in four deaths are smoking related. The most effective method of reducing smoking prevalence is by employing a two-tier strategy to 1) prevent adolescents from initiating smoking and 2) offer effective help to smokers to quit. The aim of this thesis was to evaluate the effect of intensive smoking cessation interventions (ISCI) on successful quitting through different study designs, synthesised from cohort studies and a review of randomised controlled trials. The aim was fulfilled through 4 scientific studies, each with their own objective. Studies A systematic review with meta-analysis (I) was set up to compare ISCI and shorter interventions in randomised controlled trials (RCT). Initially, 9,569 unique papers were identified, and, after screening for relevant studies, 18 RCTs were included, investigating a total of 10,131 smokers. The studies were primarily conducted in Western Europa and the USA. The body of evidence for three of four outcomes were graded moderate, and the last outcome was graded low. A random effect meta-analysis revealed that smokers randomised to ISCI were significantly more likely to be successful quitters compared to shorter interventions for all four outcomes. The primary outcome (continuous abstinence in the short and long term) increased the chance of success 3-fold. A methodological study (II) of the Danish National Smoking Cessation Database (SCDB) was undertaken. The development of the SCDB and the most commonly registered smoking cessation interventions (SCI) were described, as were the data collection and validity. Two cohort studies based on the data from the SCDB were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of SCI in real life. One study investigated the effectiveness of five different SCIs (III) and found that the intensive Gold Standard Programme’ (GSP - Standard SCI in Denmark) was the only intervention that was effective for both men and women. The other cohort study was set up to investigate the effectiveness of the GSP in a vulnerable subgroup of smokers diagnosed with severe mental disorder (SMD) (IV). The study showed that smokers with SMD were significantly less likely to become successful quitters compared to smokers without mental disorders. However, one in every four smokers with SMD managed to stay continuously smoke-free for at least 6 months compared to one in three in the comparison group. The data were analysed using a mixed-effect logistic regression model. In both cohort studies, compliance was identified as the strongest predictor of a successful outcome. Conclusion This thesis adds to the evidence on intensive smoking cessation interventions (ISCI) through different study designs. The results from both study designs favoured ISCI, although the GSP was significantly less effective in smokers with SMD compared to smokers without mental illness. To develop effective SCI in the future, it is important to evaluate the effects in an RCT and to follow-up the post-implementation effects in real life (e.g., through a national SCDB).

Efficacy of electronic cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation: An adapted systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
T O'Dowd
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Electronic Cigarettes ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Smoking Reduction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Worldwide smoking remains the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality. Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are increasingly used by tobacco smokers as an aid to smoking cessation; however, their efficacy remains uncertain. Methods Electronic databases, clinical trial registries and grey literature sources were searched. The aim was to examine randomised controlled trials or prospective cohort studies, published since the 2016 Cochrane review on this topic, that assessed the efficacy of ECs in achieving smoking cessation among current smokers. Results Two RCTs and five cohort studies, including a total of 16,460 participants, were eligible for inclusion. One RCT found sustained 1-year abstinence of 18.0% in the EC group versus 9.9% in the nicotine replacement therapy group (RR: 1.83; 95% CI 1.30 to 2.58; P < 0.001). The second RCT did not find a statistically significant difference in abstinence rates between EC users and non-users (RR 0.71). Of the five included cohort studies, four reported statistically significant RRs. Two found a positive association (RRs of 1.45 and 1.84) between EC use and smoking cessation but two studies showed EC use was associated with reduced smoking cessation (RRs of 0.25 and 0.35). Due to significant heterogeneity between the studies the data were deemed unsuitable for pooling into a meta-analysis. All trials assessing smoking reduction reported higher rates of reduction among EC users. No serious adverse events were reported with EC use. Follow-up periods of included trials ranged from one to four years, with an average of 1.6 years. Conclusions There is limited, low-quality evidence that ECs are an effective intervention for smoking cessation and smoking reduction. The overall quality of evidence is low as it is based on a small number of studies with inconsistent and imprecise results. Due to the short follow-up periods of the included trials, the long-term safety of ECs is unclear from this review. Key messages Limited evidence that electronic cigarettes are an effective smoking cessation intervention. Further well-designed randomised controlled trials are required to investigate the efficacy of ECs for smoking cessation.

scholarly journals Pharmacological and behavioural interventions to promote smoking cessation in adults with schizophrenia and bipolar disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e027389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Pearsall ◽  
Daniel J Smith ◽  
John R Geddes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Serious Mental Illness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Public Health Problem ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Major Public Health Problem ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveSmoking in people with serious mental illness is a major public health problem and contributes to significant levels of morbidity and mortality. The aim of the review was to systematically examine the efficacy of methods used to aid smoking cessation in people with serious mental illness.MethodA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and behavioural programmes for smoking cessation in people with serious mental illness. Electronic databases were searched for trials to July 2018. We used the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias.ResultsTwenty-eight randomised controlled trials were identified. Varenicline increased the likelihood of smoking cessation at both 3 months (risk ratio (RR) 3.56, 95% CI 1.82 to 6.96, p=0.0002) and at 6 months (RR 3.69, 95% CI 1.08 to 12.60, p=0.04). Bupropion was effective at 3 months (RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.86 to 8.40, p=0.0003), especially at a dose of 300 mg/day, but there was no evidence of effect at 6 months (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.52 to 9.47, p=0.28). In one small study, nicotine therapy proved effective at increasing smoking cessation up to a period of 3 months. Bupropion used in conjunction with nicotine replacement therapy showed more effect than single use. Behavioural and bespoke interventions showed little overall benefit. Side effects were found to be low.ConclusionThe new information of this review was the effectiveness of varenicline for smoking cessation at both 3 and 6 months and the lack of evidence to support the use of both bupropion and nicotine products for sustained abstinence longer than 3 months. Overall, the review found relatively few studies in this population.

scholarly journals Common elective orthopaedic procedures and their clinical effectiveness: umbrella review of level 1 evidence

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n1511
Author(s):  
Ashley W Blom ◽  
Richard L Donovan ◽  
Andrew D Beswick ◽  
Michael R Whitehouse ◽  
Setor K Kunutsor
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Meniscal Repair ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Operative Care ◽  
Total Knee ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Study Designs

AbstractObjectiveTo determine the clinical effectiveness of common elective orthopaedic procedures compared with no treatment, placebo, or non-operative care and assess the impact on clinical guidelines.DesignUmbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials or other study designs in the absence of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesTen of the most common elective orthopaedic procedures—arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic meniscal repair of the knee, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy of the knee, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, arthroscopic subacromial decompression, carpal tunnel decompression, lumbar spine decompression, lumbar spine fusion, total hip replacement, and total knee replacement—were studied. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and bibliographies were searched until September 2020.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesMeta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (or in the absence of meta-analysis other study designs) that compared the clinical effectiveness of any of the 10 orthopaedic procedures with no treatment, placebo, or non-operative care.Data extraction and synthesisSummary data were extracted by two independent investigators, and a consensus was reached with the involvement of a third. The methodological quality of each meta-analysis was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews instrument. The Jadad decision algorithm was used to ascertain which meta-analysis represented the best evidence. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence search was used to check whether recommendations for each procedure reflected the body of evidence.Main outcome measuresQuality and quantity of evidence behind common elective orthopaedic interventions and comparisons with the strength of recommendations in relevant national clinical guidelines.ResultsRandomised controlled trial evidence supports the superiority of carpal tunnel decompression and total knee replacement over non-operative care. No randomised controlled trials specifically compared total hip replacement or meniscal repair with non-operative care. Trial evidence for the other six procedures showed no benefit over non-operative care.ConclusionsAlthough they may be effective overall or in certain subgroups, no strong, high quality evidence base shows that many commonly performed elective orthopaedic procedures are more effective than non-operative alternatives. Despite the lack of strong evidence, some of these procedures are still recommended by national guidelines in certain situations.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018115917.

scholarly journals Effect of reducing total fat intake on body weight: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies

BMJ ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 345 (dec06 1) ◽  
pp. e7666-e7666 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Hooper ◽  
A. Abdelhamid ◽  
H. J. Moore ◽  
W. Douthwaite ◽  
C. M. Skeaff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Body Weight ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Fat Intake ◽  
Total Fat ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Interpretation of health news items reported with or without spin: protocol for a prospective meta-analysis of 16 randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e017425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romana Haneef ◽  
Amélie Yavchitz ◽  
Philippe Ravaud ◽  
Gabriel Baron ◽  
Ivan Oranksy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Public ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Health News ◽  
French Speaking ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Study Designs ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionWe aim to compare the interpretation of health news items reported with or without spin. ‘Spin’ is defined as a misrepresentation of study results, regardless of motive (intentionally or unintentionally) that overemphasises the beneficial effects of the intervention and overstates safety compared with that shown by the results.Methods and analysisWe have planned a series of 16 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to perform a prospective meta-analysis. We will select a sample of health news items reporting the results of four types of study designs, evaluating the effect of pharmacological treatment and containing the highest amount of spin in the headline and text. News items reporting four types of studies will be included: (1) preclinical studies; (2) phase I/II (non-randomised) trials; (3) RCTs and (4) observational studies. We will rewrite the selected news items and remove the spin. The original news and rewritten news will be appraised by four types of populations: (1) French-speaking patients; (2) French-speaking general public; (3) English-speaking patients and (4) English-speaking general public. Each RCT will explore the interpretation of news items reporting one of the four study designs by each type of population and will include a sample size of 300 participants. The primary outcome will be participants’ interpretation of the benefit of treatment after reading the news items: (What do you think is the probability that treatment X would be beneficial to patients? (scale, 0 (very unlikely) to 10 (very likely)).This study will evaluate the impact of spin on the interpretation of health news reporting results of studies by patients and the general public.Ethics and disseminationThis study has obtained ethics approval from the Institutional Review Board of the Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (INSERM) (registration no: IRB00003888). The description of all the steps and the results of this prospective meta-analysis will be available online and will be disseminated as a published article. On the completion of this study, the results will be sent to all participants.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017058941.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document