SynthesisPloS one2026
Integrating smoking cessation into HIV care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and the evidence gap in cost-effectiveness.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevalence of smoking among people living with HIV (PLWH) is higher than in the general population, and PLWH who smoke are at increased risk of both smoking- and HIV-related comorbidities. As most PLWH reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is a need for effective and cost-effective smoking cessation interventions in resource-constrained settings. We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for PLWH and looked for economic evaluations. Four databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched up to March 23rd, 2026. Interventional and quasi-experimental studies evaluating smoking cessation interventions for PLWH were included. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool for randomized studies and the Effective Public Healthcare Panacea Project tool for non-randomized studies. Thirty-two articles met the inclusion criteria. Most evidence originated from high-income countries, with three randomized controlled trials conducted in LMICs (Kenya, South Africa and Vietnam). No economic evaluations were identified. Smoking cessation interventions varied in type, duration, intensity, and mode of delivery. Overall, studies had low to moderate risk of bias. GRADE assessments indicated moderate-certainty evidence that pharmacological interventions (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.42-2.45) and tailored, intensive behavioral support (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.05-1.71) increase smoking abstinence compared with standard care. This review indicates that pharmacological and tailored, intensive behavioral support interventions can support smoking cessation among PLWH, including emerging evidence from LMICs, but the absence of economic evaluations limits guidance for resource-constrained settings. Future research should prioritise implementation strategies and economic evaluations to support scalable integration into routine HIV care. (PROSPERO Registration no: CRD42022313630).
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.