The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Randomised controlled trial of nicotine chewing-gum.
Open accessAbstract
The effectiveness of 2 mg nicotine chewing-gum as an aid to stopping smoking was compared with a placebo containing 1 mg nicotine, but unbuffered, in a double-blind randomised trial. Of 58 subjects given the active gum, 27 (47%) were not smoking at one-year follow-up compared with 12 (21%) of the 58 subjects treated with placebo (p less than 0.025). By the most stringent criterion of outcome, 18 (31%) subjects in the active treatment group and eight (14%) in the placebo group had not smoked at all from the start of treatment to follow-up at one year (p less than 0.05). Subjects receiving the active gum experienced less severe withdrawal symptoms and rated their gum as more helpful than did the placebo group. Minor side effects were common but only gastric symptoms were more frequent with the active gum. Subjects receiving active gum used it for longer than those receiving placebo but most stopped using it within six months and only four (7%) developed longer-term dependence. The number of gums used daily correlated significantly with pretreatment blood nicotine concentrations in the active treatment group and with pretreatment cigarette consumption in the placebo group. A lower pretreatment blood nicotine value was the best predictor of success at one year (p less than 0.001) but there was no significant relation to cigarette consumption, sex, and social class. The results clearly confirm the usefulness of nicotine chewing-gum as an aid to stopping smoking and imply a definite role for nicotine in cigarette dependence and withdrawal. Successful use of the gum requires careful attention to subjects' expectations and clear instructions on how to use it.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The development and initial validation of a questionnaire on smoking urges
TIFFANY, S. T., & DROBES, D. J. (1991) · British Journal of Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01732.x · Cited by 974
Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation
Silagy, C., Lancaster, T., Stead, L., Mant, D., & Fowler, G. (2004) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000146.pub2 · Cited by 972
Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation
Stead, L. F., Perera, R., Bullen, C., Mant, D., & Lancaster, T. (2008) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000146.pub3 · Cited by 721
Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation
Hartmann-Boyce, J., Chepkin, S. C., Ye, W., Bullen, C., & Lancaster, T. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000146.pub5 · Cited by 697
Nicotine Medications for Smoking Cessation
Henningfield, J. E. (1995) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199511023331807 · Cited by 352
Metadata
- Authors
- Jarvis, M. J., Raw, M., Russell, M. A., & Feyerabend, C.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1982-08-21
- Volume
- 285
- Issue
- 6341
- Pages
- 537-540
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2040616879
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomised controlled trial of nicotine chewing-gum. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.285.6341.537
- The paper
- Jarvis, M. J., Raw, M., Russell, M. A., & Feyerabend, C. (1982). Randomised controlled trial of nicotine chewing-gum. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.285.6341.537
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.