CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 101

Nicotine Gum, 2 and 4 mg, for Nicotine Dependence

Herrera, Natasha, Franco, Roberto, Herrera, Lorenzo, Partidas, Antolin, Rolando, Ramon, Fagerström, Karl Olov·1995·Chest
DOI 10.1378/chest.108.2.447
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The effectiveness of nicotine gum in combination with a behavior modification program was studied. The nicotine dependence of participating smokers (N = 322) was assessed. One hundred sixty-eight smokers were labeled as high nicotine dependent and 154 as moderate to low dependent. In a randomized double-blind procedure, the high-dependent smokers were given gum containing 4 mg of nicotine (87) or 2 mg of nicotine (81) and the smokers with medium or low dependence were given gum containing 2 mg (76) or a placebo gum (78). The smokers were also randomized to familiarizing themselves with the medication a week before quit day (112) or to regular use, that is starting gum use on the quit day (122). In the high-dependent group, sustained and chemically verified nonsmoking rates at 6 weeks, 1 year, and 2 years were, respectively, 60%, 39%, and 34% in the subjects given the 4-mg dose compared with 41%, 16%, and 16% for those using the 2-mg dose. In the group with medium or low dependence, the success rates at the same time periods were 70%, 49%, and 39% for the subjects given the 2-mg dose and 38%, 22%, and 17% for those given placebo gum. The differences in success rates were significant at least at the p < 0.02% level for all comparisons. Familiarizing with the gum as compared with regular use gave fewer reports of side effects, 15% vs 34%, p < 0.001. A trend toward better success rates at 6 weeks, although not statistically significant, was observed for the familiarization group,…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1378/chest.108.2.447

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Medically approved oral smoking cessation aids such as nicotine gum and nicotine lozenges with a higher nicotine content and which give greater nicotine delivery to users have previously been shown to be more effective in assisting smoking cessation than products with a lower nicotine content, particularly in more heavily dependent smokers.

    “medically approved oral smoking cessation aids such as nicotine gum and nicotine lozenges with a higher nicotine content and which give greater nicotine delivery to users [36] have previously been shown to be more effective in assisting smoking cessation than products with a lower nicotine content, particularly in more heavily dependent smokers [37–40].”

    From A Randomised Study to Investigate the Nicotine Pharmacokinetics of Oral Nicotine Pouches and a Combustible Cigarette (2022) · cites this paper as [38]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Herrera, N., Franco, R., Herrera, L., Partidas, A., Rolando, R., & Fagerström, K. O.
Venue
Chest
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1995-08
Volume
108
Issue
2
Pages
447-451
ISSN
0012-3692
DOI
10.1378/chest.108.2.447
Cited by
101
References
2
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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