SynthesisEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2022
Intensive
Synthesis in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Korean Clinical Practice Guideline of Korean Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (KSRNT) and National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) on Treatment of Tobacco Use 2024.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Guideline
- Does smoking cessation affect postoperative healing following oral surgery among smokers? - a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Peri-operative tobacco cessation interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Anaesthesia · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of the intensified follow-up procedure of patients lost to 6-month follow-up after an intensive smoking and nicotine cessation intervention in practice: a cohort study.Tobacco control · 2026Article
- Treatable moments for smoking cessation in asthma and COPD: a nationwide cohort study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Effectiveness and Adherence of Standalone Digital Tobacco Cessation Modalities: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- The Concept of a Large Group-Based Approach for Intensive Smoking Cessation: The Gold Standard Program (GSP).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Midline incisional hernia guidelines: the European Hernia Society.The British journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of tobacco-cessation interventions delivered perioperatively.BMJ open · 2023Article
- A survey exploring the practices of smoking cessation support among hospital-based healthcare providers.BMC health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of intensive smoking cessation interventions (ISCIs) directly compared with shorter interventions (SIs), measured as successful quitting.
methodMedline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL were searched on 15 October 2021. Peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult, daily smokers undergoing an ISCI were included. No setting, time or language restrictions were imposed. Risk of bias and quality of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, respectively. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.
results17 550 unique articles were identified and 17 RCTs evaluating 9812 smokers were included. 14 studies were conducted in Europe or the USA. The quality of the evidence was assessed as low or moderate. Continuous abstinence was significantly higher in ISCIs in the long term (risk ratio 2.60, 95% CI 1.71-3.97). Direction and magnitude were similar in the short term; however, they were not statistically significant (risk ratio 2.49, 95% CI: 0.94-6.56). When measured as point prevalence, successful quitting was still statistically significant in favour of ISCIs, but lower (long term: 1.64, 1.08-2.47; short term: 1.68, 1.10-2.56). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results.
conclusionISCIs are highly effective compared to SIs. This important knowledge should be used to avoid additional morbidity and mortality caused by smoking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.