Skip to main content
. 2019 Jan 9;2019(1):CD001118. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001118.pub4

Burling 1989.

Methods Setting: Veterans Administration Medical Center, USA
 Recruitment: VA employees
Participants 58 smokers, average age 44, average cpd 27
Interventions ∙ American Cancer Society and ALA pamphlets about smoking, a telephone hotline, and a stop‐smoking contest that gave vouchers for a draw, for each day with expired CO < 8 ppm
 ∙ As bullet above plus use of a computer to enter data on smoking behaviour and smoking a cigarette through a filter attached to the computer; this produced an individualised nicotine fading programme that was explained in an accompanying manual
Outcomes Abstinence at 6 months
 Validation: CO < 8 ppm
Notes 2 vs 1, tailored self‐help vs standard self‐help
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Randomised; method not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No details given
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Interventions of similar intensity; biochemical validation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk 4 dropouts re‐included in denominators for this review