Summary of findings for the main comparison. Training health professionals for smoking cessation.
| Training health professionals for smoking cessation | ||||||
| Patient or population: Smokers treated by health professionals Intervention: Training | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Training health professionals | |||||
| Point prevalence of smoking cessation self‐report and some biologically validated Follow‐up: 6 to 14 months | 78 per 1000 | 107 per 1000 (88 to 131) | OR 1.41 (1.13 to 1.77) | 13459 (14 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2 | |
| Continuous smoking abstinence self‐report and some biologically validated Follow‐up: 6 to 14 months | 27 per 1000 | 42 per 1000 (28 to 62) | OR 1.60 (1.26 to 2.03) | 9443 (8 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2 | |
| Number of smokers counselled self‐report Follow‐up: 6 to 48 months | 465 per 1000 | 664 per 1000 (578 to 739) | OR 2.28 (1.58 to 3.27) | 8531 (14 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,3 | |
| Patients asked to make a follow‐up appointment self‐report Follow‐up: 6 to 12 months | 166 per 1000 | 400 per 1000 (233 to 593) | OR 3.34 (1.52 to 7.30) | 3114 (7 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | |
| Number of smokers receiving self‐help material self‐report Follow‐up: 6 to 48 months | 134 per 1000 | 351 per 1000 (227 to 500) | OR 3.51 (1.90 to 6.47) | 4925 (9 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | |
| Number of smokers receiving nicotine gum/replacement therapy self‐report Follow‐up: 12 to 48 months | 312 per 1000 | 416 per 1000 (283 to 563) | OR 1.57 (0.87 to 2.84) | 5073 (9 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,3 | |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Unclear methods of sequence generation and allocation concealment in the majority of studies and all studies had inadequate blinding of participants 2 Wide confidence intervals around the estimate of effect 3 Significantly large amounts of heterogeneity were observed (I² >90%)