Cited by 36

A single-blind, randomized, crossover trial of the effects of a nicotine pouch on the relief of tobacco withdrawal symptoms and user satisfaction

Thornley, Simon, McRobbie, Hayden, Lin, Ruey-Bin, Bullen, Chris, Hajek, Peter, Laugesen, Murray, Senior, Hugh, Whittaker, Robyn·2009·Nicotine & Tobacco Research

Abstract

Introduction We compared the effects of a 4-mg oral nicotine pouch (Zonnic pouch), with nicotine chewing gum and placebo pouch, on withdrawal discomfort after overnight tobacco abstinence. We also assessed participants' preferences, satisfaction, and consumption patterns. Methods This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover study of 30 adult smokers. After overnight tobacco abstinence, subjects reported on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS; 0-100) tobacco withdrawal symptoms (craving, irritability, difficulty concentrating, and restlessness) before use and during the first hour after first product use. They then used the product throughout the study day and in the evening reported product usefulness, temporary abstinence success, and satisfaction. Results In a multivariate analysis, area under the curve (craving vs. time) was reduced by 23 points 60 min after taking the study medication in the nicotine pouch group, compared with 15- and 8-point decreases in the gum and placebo groups, respectively. The difference in craving ratings between the pouch and placebo was significant (p = .002). Nicotine pouch reduced irritability more than gum (difference = 9.86; p = .01). For pouch users, the odds ratio for temporary tobacco abstinence (21.5 hr) during study days (compared with gum) was 2.8 (95% CI = 0.8-8.1). Compared with the gum, the pouch was rated as significantly more "helpful to stop smoking" (difference = 20.6; 95% CI = 2.4-38.9) and "pleasant to use" (differenc…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ntr/ntp054

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Thornley, S., McRobbie, H., Lin, R.-B., Bullen, C., Hajek, P., Laugesen, M., Senior, H., & Whittaker, R.
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Published
2009-05-19
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
715-721
ISSN
  • 1469-994X
  • 1462-2203
Cited by
36
References
3
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review