Cited by 94Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects

Nicotine patch therapy prior to quitting smoking: a meta‐analysis

Shiffman, Saul, Ferguson, Stuart G.·2008·Addiction

Abstract

Aim To evaluate the incremental efficacy of starting nicotine patch treatment prior to quitting compared to the current regimen of starting patch treatment on the target quit day. Design and measurements Meta‐analysis of four eligible studies using pre‐cessation patch treatment, located by database search and contacts with cessation researchers. The studies all compared starting treatment with nicotine patch prior to the target quit date to starting active treatment at the quit date, some in the context of concurrent mecamylamine treatment. The primary end‐point for the analysis was continuous abstinence for at least 28 days assessed at 6 weeks following quit day; 6‐month outcomes were also examined. Findings Compared to starting active patch treatment on quit day, pre‐cessation treatment with nicotine patches was found to double the odds of quitting. This was true both at 6 weeks [pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.31–2.93] and 6 months (pooled OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.46–3.22) treatment outcomes. Mecamylamine co‐treatment did not modify these effects. Conclusions Across the four studies analyzed, pre‐cessation patch treatment was found to produce a robust increase in quit rates compared to current regimens starting patch at quit day. Pre‐cessation patch use represents a promising innovation in smoking cessation therapy with potential beneficial implications for improved public health by further increasing quitting success.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02138.x

Cites

22 of 22 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shiffman, S., & Ferguson, S. G.
Affiliations
  • Pinney Associates (United States) (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Shiffman, Saul
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-03-13
Volume
103
Issue
4
Pages
557-563
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2141007290
Cited by
94
References
22
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
7.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
Funders
GlaxoSmithKline
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Keywords
nicotine patch, smoking cessation, nicotine replacement therapy, mecamylamine, quit rates, continuous abstinence, treatment timing
MeSH terms
Administration, Cutaneous, Humans, Nicotine, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Smoking Cessation, Nicotinic Agonists

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