Summary of findings 1. Summary of findings table ‐ Combination NRT compared to control for nicotine vaping cessation.
| Combination NRT compared to control for nicotine vaping cessation | ||||||
| Patient or population: nicotine vaping cessation Setting: Any (USA) Intervention: combination NRT Comparison: control | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with control | Risk with combination NRT | |||||
| Vaping cessation at 6 months or longer follow‐up: 6 months | 11 per 100 | 29 per 100 (3 to 100) | RR 2.57 (0.29 to 22.93) | 16 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b | |
| Change in combustible tobacco use at 6 months or longer ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | No studies reported this outcome. |
| Number of participants reporting SAEs follow‐up: 3 months | Not pooled | Not pooled | Not pooled | 508 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowc | We did not calculate relative or absolute effects as there were no events across study arms. |
| *The risk in the intervention group (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; RR: risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
| See interactive version of this table: https://gdt.gradepro.org/presentations/#/isof/isof_question_revman_web_451184852882794857. | ||||||
a Downgraded two levels due to risk of bias: only study contributing to comparison and outcome was judged to be at high risk of bias. b Downgraded two levels due to imprecision: extremely low number of events across arms (n = 3) and 95% CI incorporates the potential for benefit, harm, and no effect of the intervention. c Downgraded two levels due to imprecision: no events recorded across study arms.