Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 562

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Regular review: Effectiveness of interventions to help people stop smoking: findings from the Cochrane Library

Open access
Lancaster, T.·2000·BMJ

Abstract

Peto estimates that current cigarette smoking will cause about 450 million deaths worldwide in the next 50 years. Reducing current smoking by 50% would avoid 20–30 million premature deaths in the first quarter of the century and about 150 million in the second quarter.1 Preventing young people from starting smoking would cut the number of deaths related to tobacco, but not until after 2050. Quitting by current smokers is therefore the only way in which tobacco related mortality can be reduced in the medium term. There is evidence that some form of treatment aids an increasing number of successful attempts to quit.2 This review aims to summarise evidence for the effectiveness of the available interventions. #### Summary points Advice from doctors, structured interventions from nurses, and individual and group counselling are effective interventions Generic self help materials are no better than brief advice but more effective than doing nothing; personalised materials are more effective than standard materials All forms of nicotine replacement therapy are effective The antidepressants bupropion and nortriptyline increased quit rates in a small number of trials; the usefulness of the antihypertensive drug clonidine is limited by side effects Anxiolytics and lobeline are ineffective The effectiveness of aversion therapy, mecamylamine, acupuncture, hypnotherapy, and exercise is uncertain The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review group identifies and summarises the evidence for interventions to reduce and prevent tobacco use; it produces and maintains systematic reviews to inform policymakers, clinicians, and individuals wishing to stop smoking. Twenty systematic reviews are available in the Cochrane Library and have contributed to the evidence base for smoking cessation guidelines.3 Details of the methods and results of each review are available in the Cochrane Library (abstracts at www.update-software.com/ccweb/cochrane/revabstr/g160index.htm). The reviews summarise results from randomised controlled trials with at least six …

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.321.7257.355

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 562

Metadata

Authors
Lancaster, T.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2000-08-05
Volume
321
Issue
7257
Pages
355-358
ISSN
0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1511655009
Cited by
562
References
8
FWCI
18.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Regular review: Effectiveness of interventions to help people stop smoking: findings from the Cochrane Library. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.321.7257.355
The paper
Lancaster, T. (2000). Regular review: Effectiveness of interventions to help people stop smoking: findings from the Cochrane Library. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7257.355

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.