Colby 2005.

Methods	Study design: RCT Location: USA Setting: hospital outpatient clinic or Emergency Department (ED), then over the phone Recruitment: in an eating disorder and an adolescent outpatient clinic at an urban hospital in the Northeast
Participants	Defining eligibility criteria?: adolescents (12 to 19 years of age) Participant characteristics: 85 adolescents; 60/85 (71%) female; mean age: 16.3; mean cpd: 10.5; nicotine dependence: mean FTND = 5.9 Motivation to quit?: not selected on motivation
Interventions	Control: Brief Advice; pamphlet on quitting smoking and list of local treatment referrals Intervention: Motivational interview (MI). As control, plus feedback sheet, goal sheet, and information about strategies for quitting and coping with withdrawal. Interventionists contacted participants by telephone 1 week after baseline. Provider: counsellors Intensity: one 15 to 20‐minute face‐to‐face session, plus one telephone call the following week Was MI fidelity monitored?: "Interventionists participated in weekly group supervision. Patients and interventionists rated each session as a compliance check. Rapport, counselor empathy, and self‐efficacy enhancement were rated on scales from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The delivery of 15 essential elements of the protocol were rated as either 0 (topic not introduced), 1 (not at all useful), 2 (somewhat useful), or 3 (very useful)."
Outcomes	Definition of cessation used: 7‐day point prevalence Length of longest follow‐up: 6 months Validation: CO validated (> 8 ppm) or cotinine validated (>= 15 ng/mL) Was mental health and/or well‐being measured at follow‐up?: no Was quality of life measured at follow‐up?: no
Funding source	"This study was supported by grant number 030330 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Additional support was provided by grant #DA11204 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and by two Department of Veterans Affairs Career Research Scientist Awards to Dr. Monti and Dr. Rohsenow."
Author conflicts of interest	None stated
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not specified ‐ only specified that allocation was random
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not specified ‐ only specified that allocation was random
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Research assistants were blind to treatment condition and assured confidentiality at each assessment. Biochemically verified
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Follow‐up rates were 80% at 1 and 6 months and 86% at 3 months, and did not differ by group.