Hall 2002.
Study characteristics | ||
Methods | Study design: 3 x 2 factorial RCT Country: USA Setting: cessation research centre Recruitment: community volunteers |
|
Participants | 220 smokers; 40% to 47% female; average age 37‐43; average cigarettes per day 20‐23 | |
Interventions |
3 x 2 factorial design. Alternative psychological interventions were Medical Management (MM, physician advice, S‐H, 10 mins to 20 mins 1st visit, 5 minds at 2, 6, 11 weeks) or Psychosocial Intervention (PI, as MM plus 5 x 90‐min group sessions at 4, 5, 7, 11 weeks) |
|
Outcomes |
Adverse events: measured for unspecified period |
|
Funding Source | National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Cancer Institute | |
Author conflicts of interest | None specified | |
Notes | No significant interaction between pharmacotherapy and behaviour therapy, so behavioural therapy arms collapsed in main analysis. Bupropion and nortriptyline compared to placebo and head‐to‐head. Levels of support compared for bupropion only, ppa rates used. Not included in behavioural support subgroup. | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: "Participants were stratified by number of cigarettes smoked, sex and history of depression vs no history, and randomly assigned to 1 of the 6 experimental cells." |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "We encapsulated both drugs to maintain the patency of the bupropion formulation and to provide a blinded drug. All participants received capsules that were identical in number and appearance" but blinding of allocation not explicit. |
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Double‐blind but participants informed about adverse effects of each drug and 87% of participants taking active drug guessed that they were (compared to 67% placebo group). Bupropion participants no more likely than nortriptyline participants to correctly identify which drug they had received. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | 19% lost to follow‐up at 52 weeks. No significant difference across conditions. Included as smokers in analyses |