| Study | Reason for exclusion |
|---|---|
| Abelin 1989 | NRT double‐blind randomized trial for 112 young people. Reported follow‐up was for 3 months only. |
| Adelman 2001 | RCT of a psycho‐social intervention targeted at young people. Although measurements made at 6 months' follow‐up, the control group were given the intervention 3 months after the intervention group, therefore only 3 months' effectiveness data were available |
| Adelman 2009 | NCT of nasal spray for 6 weeks plus counselling vs counselling alone. Unpleasant adverse effects, poor adherence, and consequent lack of efficacy did support the use of nicotine nasal spray as an adjunct to counselling. Outcome reported at 12 weeks therefore not added to review. |
| Ames 2007 | Median age of study subjects was 20 years with range 18‐21 years. This age range is outside scope of this review. |
| An 2007 | Evaluated recruitment strategies, not smoking cessation |
| Arora 2010 | Study reported prevalence‐level information only so it was not possible to identify individual‐level smoking cessation. Majority of sample (around 95%) were non‐smokers at baseline. Although intervention contained a cessation component it was not possible to separate this from the effect of the other components of the intervention. Study was previously listed as an ongoing study, excluded in 2017 update after publication of the results paper (Harrell 2016). |
| Audrain‐McGovern 2011 | Although a cessation trial, the intervention group could choose reduction rather than cessation as an outcome. Not added to data as not a pure cessation trial. |
| Audrey 2008 | Smoking prevention programme, not cessation |
| Bannink 2014 | Not all participants were smokers |
| Bauman 2000 | The authors state that there were "no activities focused explicitly on cessation or reduction " in their intervention. |
| Bloor 1999 | Controlled trial using pupil advocates but only 3‐month follow‐up |
| Bond 2004 | No discrete cessation component or results |
| Bramley 2005 | Study participants outside age range of review |
| Braverman 1994 | Report not found but unlikely to be a trial |
| Brendryen 2008 | Trial of internet‐based support over 12‐month period for > 18‐year‐olds. Self‐reports of abstinence used with no verification. Main outcome repeated reports of abstinence at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. |
| Brinker 2016 | Participants were not smokers at baseline. |
| Buller 2014a | Adult population (mean age = 25.0 years) |
| Buller 2014b | Adult population (mean age = 24.9 years) |
| Burton 1994 | This is a report of the secondary cessation component/effects of the Project TNT intervention designed as a preventative programme. Follow‐up was 4 months after start of trial. Summary paper published in 2009. |
| Cai 2000 | Intervention over 4 weeks and follow‐up of cases for further 3 months. Excluded as not having 6‐month follow‐up but results from 3 months give no evidence of effectiveness: 1/12 (end of treatment OR = 1.027 (0.57‐1.84) and 4/12 from beginning of study = OR 0.971 (0.53‐1.77) |
| Campbell 2008 | This trial was not designed as a pure cessation intervention. |
| Cavallo 2007 | Preliminary data giving end‐of‐treatment rates of cessation but no long‐term follow‐up |
| Chan 1988 | Non‐randomized controlled trial. Previously included, but excluded in 2017 update because of updated inclusion criteria. |
| Chen 2006 | Follow‐up only 4 weeks so not eligible for this review |
| Colby 1998 | RCT of brief MI in a hospital setting. Follow‐up at three months so not eligible for this review. |
| Curry 2013 | Review |
| Digiusto 1994 | This study, a "quasi‐experiment" with pair matching for analysis, described 2 interventions (same intervention but different time of delivery) and control. Control data on quitting collected at 6 months but data from 1 intervention arm collected at approximately 19 weeks after allocation. |
| Dino 1998 | West Virginia NoT with 3‐ and 4‐month follow‐up data from baseline |
| Egger 1983 | Community intervention, with cessation component and control population, aimed at adults in community > 18 years. Although subset of population this study was not aimed primarily at young people. |
| Ehrsam 1991 | Average age of participants in intervention group 21.9 ± 6.8 years and control 24.1 ± 6.9 years. Small size of overall study groups (56 cases in each arm) would mean it would be difficult to extract meaningful outcomes from sub‐group analysis for age range of this review. |
| Elsasser 2002 | Conference paper: trial of only 17 cases randomized to treatment or control therefore very underpowered. Outcome measured at 3/12. |
| Emmons 2003 | This study was long‐term follow‐up of children who had had cancer. Current age of participants was 31 ± 6.6 years. |
| Erol 2008 | Uncontrolled before and after study |
| Escoffery 2004 | Programme aimed at college students > 18 years of age. Average age of participants was 21 years |
| Faessel 2009 | Clinical trial of safety and tolerability and pharmacokinetics of 14 days of high‐dose varenicline. Study design did not include cessation outcomes |
| Fagan 2003 | This was an RCT designed to control tobacco use amongst young people and based in the workplace. Outcomes were reduction of use and intention to quit measures rather than actual cessation |
| Figa‐Talamanca 1989 | Educational RCT aimed at whole class groups and not specifically smokers |
| Flay 1995 | Primarily a prevention programme and measured outcomes were in terms of knowledge and intention to quit. Cessation component not discrete |
| Gray 2011 | A trial of sustained‐release bupropion combined with contingency management. The primary outcome was 7‐day cotinine‐verified PPA but follow‐up was only for 12 weeks. |
| Gray 2012 | Last follow‐up only at 12 weeks |
| Ha 2015 | Non‐randomized controlled trial |
| Hamilton 2005 | A school‐based cluster‐RCT designed to test a harm minimization approach. Only prevalence data available, no discrete results for smokers |
| Hancock 2001 | Trial of community intervention aimed at teenagers that reported population prevalence of smoking rather than following up individual smokers |
| Hanson 2003 | Trial of NRT (patches) for 13‐19 year olds. Abstinence reported at 10 weeks post quit date |
| Hanson 2006 | A harm reduction study rather than cessation |
| Haug 2009 | Study of SMS intervention for young adults. Mean age = 25 years |
| Heikkinen 2009 | Finnish study of smokers aged 15‐16 years. 2 intervention groups, information and support offered by dentist or school nurse. Only 3‐month follow‐up |
| Hellmann 1988 | Although (quasi) experimental in design there was no formal randomization or attempt to case match and baseline characteristics not been assessed or compared |
| Helstrom 2004 | Potentailly interesting study with positive results but follow‐up only 5 months in initial report |
| Higgs 2000 | This primarily a prevention trial reporting secondary cessation effects |
| Hollis 1994 | Not targeted at regular smokers and discrete quitting data not available |
| Horn 2004 | Report of West Virginia trial with 3‐month follow‐up data only |
| Hort 1995 | Prevention review. No discrete cessation programme |
| Jason 1982 | This was essentially a trial of 2 whole‐class prevention strategies |
| Josendal 1998 | Primarily a prevention study |
| Kang 2005 | Excluded as follow‐up was 4 weeks |
| Kealey 2009 | Telephone counselling intervention (MI and cognitive behavioral skills training) with matched pair design |
| Kelleher 1999 | Smoking cessation was a component of an intervention to reduce cardiovascular risk. No discrete results measured |
| Kentala 1999 | Intervention by dentists to discuss smoking during annual check up. Young people randomized to brief intervention or normal care. Prevalence data only collected. Individual smokers not followed up |
| Keyser 2014 | Review |
| Killen 1988 | This was a cardiovascular health promotion trial with a smoking cessation component but without discrete results for individual smokers. |
| Kim 2004 | No discrete cessation component in report |
| Knishkowy 2008 | Prevention study |
| Kong 2015 | Follow‐up was 3 months only |
| Krishnan‐Sarin 2013 | Follow‐up was 3 months only |
| La Torre 2013 | Participants were not smokers at time of recruitment |
| Lando 2007 | Study experienced some recruitment issues and it is not clear that all participants were active smokers |
| Lotecka 1983 | Cognitive behavioural intervention trialled in 4 schools. No discrete results available and follow‐up 3 months |
| McCambridge 2004 | Follow‐up of smoking component was 3 months only |
| McCuller 2006 | Project EX intervention that reported 3‐month follow‐up |
| Mermelstein 2006 | Follow‐up 3 months only |
| Minary 2013 | Non‐randomized ‐ the study was controlled; however the differences between arms were investigated at baseline and there were significant differences, which were not controlled for in the analysis |
| Mokina 2015 | Aimed at reducing intensity of smoking activity, not cessation |
| Myers 2005 | Non‐randomized controlled trial. Previously included, but excluded in 2016 update because of updated inclusion criteria |
| Myers 2008 | Although a smoking cessation intervention, it was targeted at and outcomes recorded for other substances |
| Niederhofer 2004 | Trial of bupropion versus placebo. Effectiveness measured at 90 days (3 months) |
| Norman 2008 | No discrete quit data available. Confirmed with study author |
| NoT AL 2008 | Non‐randomized controlled trial. Previously included, but excluded in 2017 update because of updated inclusion criteria. |
| NoT FL 2001 | Non‐randomized controlled trial. Previously included, but excluded in 2017 update because of updated inclusion criteria. |
| NoT NC 2005 | Non‐randomized controlled trial. Previously included, but excluded in 2017 update because of updated inclusion criteria. |
| NoT WV 2004 | Non‐randomized controlled trial. Previously included, but excluded in 2017 update because of updated inclusion criteria. |
| Pallonen 1998 | This was a comparison trial between 2 interventions. There was no control group randomized to 'placebo'/no intervention. The study authors state "The inclusion of two different interventions (for smokers) rather than a treatment/control comparison is for process analysis since the sample size was inadequate for a clinical trial." The number of smokers in study was 135. |
| Park 2015 | Review |
| Patten 2014 | Majority of tobacco consumed by participants was smokeless, outcomes not divided by type of tobacco |
| Pbert 2006 | Excluded as follow‐up only 3 months |
| Pbert 2008 | Not specifically targeted at smokers and no discrete results available at this time |
| Peirson 2016 | Review |
| Perry 1980 | This was primarily a prevention study as the stated aim was to influence the incidence of smoking. The results were presented in such a form that overall prevalence was measured for a whole year group and discrete smokers could not be identified. |
| Prokhorov 2010 | Of 1574 participants, only 62 were smokers |
| Quinlan 2000 | Clinical trial using intervention matched to stage of change (TTM). Age range 18‐55 years. Mean age by group of participants was 20.41 years, 21.71 and 23.3 years and therefore this study falls outside the scope of this review. |
| Rabius 2004 | The age range of this study included a cohort of 18‐25 year olds. it is not possible to disaggregate 18 and 19 year olds from report of study but author contacted for primary data. If available these data will be incorporated in future versions of review |
| Ramo 2015 | Adult population (mean age = 20.8 years) |
| Reynolds 2015 | 6‐week follow‐up only |
| Rice 2010 | Study based on Project Towards No Tobacco (Project EX‐4 2007). Non random allocation instead compared cohorts in different years. |
| Roddy 2006 | Although this study mets all other inclusion criteria the outcome was measured at 13 weeks. This review uses Russell Standards, i.e. a minimum of a 6‐month follow‐up. |
| Rubinstein 2008 | 12‐week follow‐up only |
| Schepis 2006 | Excluded as outcome was measured at 4 weeks |
| Severson 1991 | Essentially a prevention study |
| Shi 2013 | 12‐week follow‐up only |
| Simmons 2011 | Test of web‐based intervention in American college students, participants > 18 years |
| Simmons 2013 | Adult population (mean age = 20.54 years) |
| Sims 2013 | Reported outcomes for young adults aged 18‐24 years; average age not reported but > 20 years. Original study intended to recruit adolescents smokers but low recruitment, and results for 52 adolescents not reported |
| Solomon 2009 | Outcomes long‐term prevalence of smoking |
| Stamm‐Balderjahn 2012 | Non‐randomized controlled trial with 40% of participants being non‐smokers. Unknown if smokers were baseline matched |
| Stein‐Seroussi 2009 | Cluster‐RCTincluding biochemical verification of cessation. Outcome reported after 90‐day follow‐up |
| Stephens 2001 | Good‐quality trial of motivational enhancement for young people but follow‐up only 30 days at end of an intervention of 5 weeks' duration. Study author notes a high dropout rate |
| Stoddard 2005 | Prevalance only measured, no discrete cessation data |
| Sussman 1995 | This was a trial of Project Towards No Tobacco (Project EX‐4 2007), an intervention based on cessation intervention clinics. Outcomes were self‐reported at 4 months after start of intervention |
| Sussman 2012 | Not a trial. Reports on progress of translated versions of Project EX |
| Thrul 2015 | Non‐randomized controlled trial, differences in baseline characteristics were present |
| Travis 2009 | Excluded as aimed at college students with participants median age 21 ± 3 years and only 3‐month follow‐up. |
| Tuisku 2016 | Adult population |
| Turner 2006 | A version of NoT with web‐based component added. Only 3/12 follow‐up |
| Wang 2006 | Not a trial of intervention but a correlation analysis |
| Werch 2008 | Trial of brief, image‐ based, multiple behaviour intervention for adolescents and college students. Aimed at range of substance abuse. 3‐month follow‐up |
| Whittaker 2011 | Although recruiting > 16 years, mean age of participants was 27 years +/‐ 8.7 |
| Winkleby 2004 | Programme aims were to reduce smoking and although gives 6/12 follow‐up, discrete results not available for individual smokers as unit of analysis was school |
| Witkiewitz 2014 | Adult population (mean age = 20.5 years) |
| Wongwiwatthananukit 2010 | Trial of pharmacist‐based cessation programme for youth offenders, 1 arm voluntary cessation, 1 arm compulsory cessation. Excluded as non‐randomized allocation as part of criminal justice process |
| Ybarra 2013 | Adult population (mean age = 21.8 years) |
MI: motivational interview/ing NoT: Not on Tobacco NRT: nicotine replacement therapy OR: odds ratio PPA: point prevalence abstinence RCT: randomized controlled trial SMS: short message service (text) TTM: Transtheoretical model (stages of change)