Skip to main content
. 2016 Sep 13;2016(9):CD010216. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub3
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