Cited by 67Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesEthics in Clinical Research

How generalisable to community samples are clinical trial results for treatment of nicotine dependence: a comparison of common eligibility criteria with respondents of a large representative general population survey

Open access
Le Strat, Yann, Rehm, Jürgen, Le Foll, Bernard·2011·Tobacco Control

Abstract

Objective: To examine the generalisability of findings from clinical trials of individuals with nicotine dependence to a large general population sample. Methods: Eligibility criteria were drawn from typical criteria of clinical trials for nicotine dependence. The National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a large national sample of the US population, was used to assess how many potentially eligible people would fulfil the eligibility criteria. NESARC interviewed more than 43 000 adults aged 18 years and older. We applied a standard set of eligibility criteria representative of smoking cessation clinical trials to all the 4962 adults with nicotine dependence in the past 12 months, and then to a subgroup of participants motivated to quit (n=4121). Results: We found that approximately six out of 10 participants (65.89%) with nicotine dependence were excluded by at least one criterion. In the subgroup of nicotine-dependent participants motivated to quit, more than half (58.60%) were excluded by at least one criterion. For the overall sample, smoking 10 cigarettes per day or less and lack of motivation to quit were the two criteria leading to exclusion for the greatest percentage of individuals (32.02% and 17.60%, respectively). For the sample motivated to quit, smoking 10 cigarettes or fewer per day and current depression led most frequently to exclusion (33.79% and 15.71%, respectively). Conclusions: Further studies and interventions should explore the efficacy of tobacco treatment interventions in a larger segment of the population, notably in the subpopulations of people with nicotine dependence who smoke fewer than 10 cigarettes per day or who have comorbid depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/tc.2010.038703

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Le Strat, Y., Rehm, J., & Le Foll, B.
Affiliations
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
Venue
Tobacco Control
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2011-01-06
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
338-343
ISSN
  • 0964-4563 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3318
OpenAlex
W2154364515
Cited by
67
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Tobacco Control (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Trinity's Access to Research Output (TARA) (Trinity College Dublin) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
nicotine dependence, smoking cessation, inclusion and exclusion criteria, generalizability, motivation to quit, depression, NESARC
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Tobacco Use Disorder, United States, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Smoking Cessation, Treatment Outcome, Diagnosis, Dual (Psychiatry), Patient Selection, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Young Adult

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