BACKGROUND: The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This reduces withdrawal symptoms associated with smoking cessation thus helping resist the urge to smoke cigarettes. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of the different forms of nicotine replacement therapy (chewing gum, transdermal patches, nasal spray, inhalers and tablets) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes, or a sustained reduction in amount smoked; to determine whether the effect is influenced by the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated, the dosage and form of the NRT used, or the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; to determine whether combinations of NRT are more effective than one type alone; and to determine its effectiveness compared to other pharmacotherapies. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in July 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the type of subjects, the dose and duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effects model (Peto). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 110 trials; 96 with a non NRT control group. The odds ratio for abstinence with NRT compared to control was 1.74 (95% confidence interval 1.64 - 1.86), The odds ratios for the different forms of NRT were 1.66 for gum, 1.74 for patches, 2.27 for nasal spray, 2.08 for inhaled nicotine and 2.08 for nicotine sublingual tablet/lozenge. These odds were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2mg gum (odds ratio 2.67, 95% confidence interval 1.69 - 4.22). There was weak evidence that combinations of forms of NRT are more effective. Higher doses of nicotine patch may produce small increases in quit rates. Only one study directly compared NRT to another pharmacotherapy, in which bupropion was significantly more effective than nicotine patch or placebo. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: All of the commercially available forms of NRT (nicotine gum, transdermal patch, the nicotine nasal spray, nicotine inhaler and nicotine sublingual tablets/lozenges) are effective as part of a strategy to promote smoking cessation. They increase quit rates approximately 1.5 to 2 fold regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the smoker. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. There is promising evidence that bupropion may be more effective than NRT (either alone or in combination). However, its most appropriate place in the therapeutic armamentarium requires further study and consideration.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation.

© 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Background: Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017. Selection criteria: Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews. Data collection and analysis: Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. Main results: We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare. Authors' conclusions: There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.

Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation

Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

Continuing medical education has been widely criticized as ineffective; most such criticism is directed at the assumption that the mere transmission of information on new research findings is sufficient to change physician performance Eight studies published during the 1970s report changes in physician behaviour (and, in one, improved patient outcomes) as a result of CME organized on sound educational principles, including systematic effort to evaluate program effectiveness and learner achievement It is also suggested that additional information on CME effectiveness is likely to be obscured by the form in which much medical literature is presented

The effectiveness of continuing medical education: eight research reports.

Objectives Despite the broad range of continuing medical education (CME) offerings aimed at educating practicing physicians through the provision of up-to-date clinical information, physicians commonly overuse, under-use, and misuse therapeutic and diagnostic interventions. It has been suggested that the ineffective nature of CME either accounts for the discrepancy between evidence and practice or at a minimum contributes to this gap. Understanding what CME tools and techniques are most effective in disseminating and retaining medical knowledge is critical to improving CME and thus diminishing the gap between evidence and practice. The purpose of this review was to comprehensively and systematically synthesize evidence regarding the effectiveness of CME and differing instructional designs in terms of knowledge, attitudes, skills, practice behavior, and clinical practice outcomes. Review methods We formulated specific questions with input from external experts and representatives of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) which nominated this topic. We systematically searched the literature using specific eligibility criteria, hand searching of selected journals, and electronic databases including: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), PsycINFO, and the Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC). Two independent reviewers conducted title scans, abstract reviews, and then full article reviews to identify eligible articles. Each eligible article underwent double review for data abstraction and assessment of study quality. Results Of the 68,000 citations identified by literature searching, 136 articles and 9 systematic reviews ultimately met our eligibility criteria. The overall quality of the literature was low and consequently firm conclusions were not possible. Despite this, the literature overall supported the concept that CME was effective, at least to some degree, in achieving and maintaining the objectives studied, including knowledge (22 of 28 studies), attitudes (22 of 26), skills (12 of 15), practice behavior (61 of 105), and clinical practice outcomes (14 of 33). Common themes included that live media was more effective than print, multimedia was more effective than single media interventions, and multiple exposures were more effective than a single exposure. The number of articles that addressed internal and/or external characteristics of CME activities was too small and the studies too heterogeneous to determine if any of these are crucial for CME success. Evidence was limited on the reliability and validity of the tools that have been used to assess CME effectiveness. Based on previous reviews, the evidence indicates that simulation methods in medical education are effective in the dissemination of psychomotor and procedural skills. Conclusions Despite the low quality of the evidence, CME appears to be effective at the acquisition and retention of knowledge, attitudes, skills, behaviors and clinical outcomes. More research is needed to determine with any degree of certainty which types of media, techniques, and exposure volumes as well as what internal and external audience characteristics are associated with improvements in outcomes.

Effectiveness of continuing medical education.

The results are reported from a multicentered, randomized clinical trial of a physician-delivered smoking cessation intervention package. All physicians attended a four-hour training session during which the rationales for the different aspects of the intervention were discussed, including a detailed description of the proper use of nicotine-bearing chewing gum. Patients were randomized to receive an offer of a prescription of 2 mg of nicotine chewing gum in addition to the basic intervention (n = 111) or the basic intervention alone (n = 112). The basic intervention included advice, setting a date for quitting, self-help materials, and the offer of supportive follow-up visits. Receptionists were instructed to recruit the first two smokers attending the practice each day. One-year smoking cessation was validated by cotinine saliva analysis. The validated three-month sustained abstinence rates at one year were 8.1 percent and 9.8 percent in the gum and no-gum groups, respectively. The 95 percent confidence interval about this difference was -9.3 percent to 6.4 percent. There is no evidence from this study that the offer of 2 mg of nicotine-bearing gum enhances smoking cessation rates when added to a comprehensive intervention offered to all smokers in primary care. Until larger trials are completed, however, the possibility that this dose of nicotine gum may produce small beneficial effects cannot be excluded.

Smoking cessation in primary care. A randomized controlled trial of nicotine-bearing chewing gum.

The impact of a continuing education package for smoking cessation on physicians' clinical behavior and patient smoking.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Gilbert

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Smoking cessation in primary care. A randomized controlled trial of nicotine-bearing chewing gum.

The impact of a continuing education package for smoking cessation on physicians' clinical behavior and patient smoking.