Evidence mapPaperPMID 37775745Full record

ReviewBMC medicine2023

Non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Tao Nian, Kangle Guo, Wendi Liu, Xinxin Deng, Xiaoye Hu, Meng Xu, Fenfen E, Ziyi Wang, Guihang Song, Kehu Yang and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Tao NianEvidence Based Social Science Research Center/Health Technology Assessment Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Kangle GuoEvidence Based Social Science Research Center/Health Technology Assessment Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Wendi LiuEvidence Based Social Science Research Center/Health Technology Assessment Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Xinxin DengEvidence Based Social Science Research Center/Health Technology Assessment Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Xiaoye HuEvidence Based Social Science Research Center/Health Technology Assessment Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Meng XuEvidence Based Social Science Research Center/Health Technology Assessment Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Fenfen EEvidence Based Social Science Research Center/Health Technology Assessment Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Ziyi WangEvidence Based Social Science Research Center/Health Technology Assessment Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Guihang SongGansu Provincial Medical Security Bureau, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Kehu YangEvidence Based Social Science Research Center/Health Technology Assessment Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Xiuxia LiEvidence Based Social Science Research Center/Health Technology Assessment Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Wenru ShangEvidence Based Social Science Research Center/Health Technology Assessment Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China. shangwr@lzu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough non-pharmacological smoking cessation measures have been widely used among smokers, current research evidence on the effects of smoking cessation is inconsistent and of mixed quality. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence synthesis. This study seeks to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate the available evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in smoking populations through evidence mapping (EM), and to search for best-practice smoking cessation programs.

methodsA comprehensive search for relevant studies published from the establishment of the library to January 8, 2023, was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang, and VIP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR 2 tool were used to evaluate the report quality and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), respectively. Bubble plots were utilized to display information, such as the study population, intervention type, evidence quality, and original study sample size.

resultsA total of 145 SRs/MAs regarding non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation were investigated, with 20 types of interventions identified. The most commonly used interventions were cognitive behaviour education (n = 32, 22.07%), professional counselling (n = 20, 13.79%), and non-nicotine electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) (n = 13, 8.97%). Among them, counselling and behavioural support can improve smoking cessation rates, but the effect varies depending on the characteristics of the support provided. These findings are consistent with previous SRs/MAs. The general population (n = 108, 74.48%) was the main cohort included in the SRs/MAs. The total score of PRISMA for the quality of the reports ranged from 8 to 27, and 13 studies (8.97%) were rated as high confidence, and nine studies (6.21%) as moderate confidence, in the AMSTAR 2 confidence rating.

conclusionsThe abstinence effect of cognitive behaviour education and money incentive intervention has advantages, and non-nicotine e-cigarettes appear to help some smokers transition to less harmful replacement tools. However, the methodological shortcomings of SRs/MAs should be considered. Therefore, to better guide future practice in the field of non-pharmacological smoking cessation, it is essential to improve the methodological quality of SRs and carry out high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsSmoking CessationCounselingHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicSmokingSmoking PreventionSystematic Reviews as TopicEvidence mapHealthyNon-pharmacological approachesSmoking cessationSystematic reviews/meta-analyses

Identifiers

PMID37775745
PMCPMC10542700

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.