Methods | Design: Longitudinal survey (data from the Minnesota Adolescent Community Cohort) Recruitment: Participants selected via cluster random sampling of household phone numbers Setting: Telephone survey Inclusion criteria: Participants who completed the survey between October 2010 and March 2011 and provided follow‐up data 1 year later Exclusion criteria: none stated |
|
Participants | Total N: 346 | |
Interventions | Observational; no specific intervention. No data on nicotine content of ECs are provided | |
Outcomes | Self‐reported smoking cessation at 1‐year follow‐up (not otherwise defined) | |
Notes | This publication is a letter in response to a comment on the authors' original paper Choi 2014, and the details on methods are taken from this. | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | High risk | Prospective cohort |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Not randomized |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Although there is no blinding, the study design and lack of intervention or contact with researchers mean that there is unlikely to be significantly impact on performance |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Although there is no blinding, the study design and lack of intervention or contact with researchers mean that there is unlikely to be significantly impact on detection |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Unable to determine attrition bias |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Unable to determine prespecified outcomes |