Summary of findings 2. Motivational interviewing in addition to other smoking cessation treatment for smoking cessation.
| Motivational interviewing in addition to other smoking cessation treatment for smoking cessation | ||||||
| Patient or population: tobacco smokers (general population, low income, inpatients and outpatients with mixed diagnoses) Setting: community, hospital, healthcare clinics (Australia, Brazil, South Africa, USA) Intervention: motivational interviewing in addition to other smoking cessation (SC) treatment Comparison: other smoking cessation treatment alone | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with other SC treatment only | Risk with MI in addition to other SC treatment | |||||
| Smoking cessation at ≥ 6 months follow‐up | Study population | RR 1.07 (0.85 to 1.36) | adjusted N = 4167 (12 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1, 2, 3 | ||
| 15 per 100 | 16 per 100 (13 to 20) | |||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1 Five studies judged to be at high risk of bias, however sensitivity analysis suggested this is unlikely to impact on the result ‐ not downgraded
2 Downgraded one level due to inconsistency: study effects differed across studies, demonstrated by moderate unexplained statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 47%)
3 Downgraded one level due to imprecision: the upper and lower limits of the confidence intervals included both meaningful benefit and harm