Wu 2017.
| Methods | Setting: Beijing, China; 2 Endocrinology and Acupuncture out‐patient clinics of a general hospital Recruitment: Asked all people who attended the clinic for participation in the study | |
| Participants | 369 adult smokers who smokers 10 or more cigs/day and were not interested in quitting, 100% M, av. age 40, 43% 10 – 19 cigs/day, 57% ≥ 20 cigs/day | |
| Interventions | 1. Exercise and diet advice (EDA) control group
2. Smoking‐reduction intervention (SRI) group Both groups received a single face‐to‐face brief advice (˜1 min) + 5 x TC follow‐up sessions of the same duration (˜1 min) after 1 week, and after 1, 3, 6 and 12 m |
|
| Outcomes | Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP) Validation: Exhaled CO level < 6 ppm | |
| Notes | New for 2018 update Funding: "This study was supported by a research grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81373080), a research grant from the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission (Z121107001012070) and Clinical Research Grants from the Chinese PLA General Hospital (2013FC‐TSYS‐1021 and MJ201447)." Declarations of interest: none reported |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "A research assistant of the project generated the random numbers for group assignment using a computer" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "After written consent, a trained counsellor who was not involved in preparing the randomization sequence opened a serially numbered, opaque and sealed envelope with a card inside indicating intervention or control and randomly allocated the participant accordingly, thus ensuring allocation concealment" |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Biochemically‐validated outcome. Validation rate achieved 43.2% by February 2017 (45.8% in the SRI group and 38.5% in the EDA control group) |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Percentage of participants lost to follow‐up was around 30% and similar across groups. There were no differences between those who completed and those who were lost to follow‐up |