Pederson 1980.

Methods	Country: Canada. Study sites: Victoria Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada. Study period: January to August 1976. Recruitment: community volunteers. Sample size calculation: not mentioned.
Participants	Number of participants: 66 smokers (37 in rapid smoking + hypnosis + counselling group; 29 in rapid smoking + counselling group). Inclusion criteria: not stated. Exclusion criteria: not stated. Overall demographics: 45 women (68.2%). Mean age 36; mean years smoked 18; mean baseline smoking rate 26 CPD. All volunteers had quit smoking at least once prior to participation, range of abstinence varied from less than a day to over a year.
Interventions	a) Rapid smoking & hypnosis (1 x 1.5 hour session consisted of a presentation of reasons for quitting, benefits of continuing abstinence and techniques for coping with withdrawal) + counselling. b) Rapid smoking + counselling. All groups: 6 weekly followed by 3 monthly counselling sessions. Rapid smoking and hypnosis sessions occurred at the third and fourth weekly sessions, respectively. Note: rapid smoking session was only done for those participants who were allowed to do the session after medical screening: a) 23 out of 37; b) 21 out of 29. Duration of intervention: approximately 4.5 months. Duration of follow‐up: 6 months.
Outcomes	Definition of smoking cessation: did not smoke a cigarette for at least 3 months at 6 month follow‐up. Adverse events: no information provided on whether or not AE data were collected and whether any AEs occurred.
Notes	Funding: Ontario Thoracic Society. Author declaration of interest: not reported. Additional notes: this study, Pederson 1975 & Pederson 1979 were undertaken by same authors and funded by the same party.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomized, method not stated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details given
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding not possible due to nature of intervention, cessation by self‐report only
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Subjects who could not participate in rapid smoking (a: 14; b: 8) were not included in the analysis. Those subjects were not eligible for the study (so they should not have been recruited to the study in the first place). All remaining subjects were included in the analysis and the authors did not report if any were lost to follow‐up.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes reported as described in the methods section.