Aveyard 2003.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: 4‐group randomized controlled trial Setting: General practices in West Midlands, UK Recruitment: Mailed invitations to patients of general practices.
Participants	65 practices 2471 people who smoked, 55% F, av.age 41, 20 cpd
Interventions	Intervention 1: participants received self help workbook and three tailored letters Intervention 2: patients received self‐help workbook, three tailored letters, and three telephone calls Intervention 3: patients received self‐help workbook, three tailored letters, and three appointments with a nurse Control: patients received four standard items of self‐help materials
Outcomes	6m sustained abstinence at 12m Validation: Salivary cotinine <14.2 ng/ml
Funding Source	The health authorities of the West Midlands
Author's declarations of interest	Not reported.
Notes	Strategy: Adjunctive counseling + Tailored print materials Level: Patient Comparison type: 1) Single component vs. standard care; 2) multicomponent vs. standard care; 3) active vs. active
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Sequence Generation	Unclear risk	No details reported
Allocation concealment	Low risk	QUOTE: "Questionnaires were read optically and the data transferred automatically to the Access database that performed the minimization and controlled the contacts. There was no reason and no way that the clerical assistant running the database could alter the questionnaire reading schedule, which would have altered the allocation of particular individuals"
Blinding of outcome assessors All outcomes	Low risk	Smoking abstinence was biochemically validated
Incomplete outcome data All outcomes	Low risk	The overall loss to follow‐up was 39.7% (n = 981/2471); 40.0% (n = 273/683) in the manual group, 43.6% (n = 299/685) in the phone group, 49.2% (n = 203/413) in the nurse group, and 29.9% (n = 206/690) in the control group were lost to follow‐up at 12 months