Cummins 2016a.

Methods	Setting: California, USA; hospital‐based Recruitment: Quote: "Recruitment procedures differed between healthcare systems based on the personnel involved and the hospital’s reliance on electronic medical records (EMRs)". In 1 study site recruitment was part of the therapists' workflow, while in another academic site, research staff were involved instead
Participants	1270 hospitalised adult smokers who smoked 6 or more cigs/day, were interested in quitting, spoke English or Spanish, and were not pregnant, 56.7% M, av. age 49.9, av. cigs/day 14.6
Interventions	Factorial 2 x 2 design comparing TC vs no TC, and NRT vs no NRT 1. No TC (usual care) ± NRT patches. In general usual care consisted of providing smokers with the quitline number, but some hospitals may have also provided counselling or prescribed quitting aids 2. TCg ± NRT patches, with 10 calls scheduled, but on av. 3.6 completed. The av. number of calls in the usual care arm was 1.7
Outcomes	Abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP) Validation: saliva cotinine < 10 ng/mL
Notes	New for 2018 update. Previously listed under ongoing studies as Cummins 2012 Funding: "This research was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (CA159533)." Declarations of interest: none reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "randomly assigned by computer"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Biochemically‐confirmed abstinence
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Similar loss to follow‐up across arms (˜33%)