↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Smoking cessation for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
122 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
454 Mendeley
Title
Smoking cessation for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010744.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva AM van Eerd, Regina M van der Meer, Onno CP van Schayck, Daniel Kotz

Abstract

Smoking cessation is the most important treatment for smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but little is known about the effectiveness of different smoking cessation interventions for this particular group of smokers. To evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural or pharmacological smoking cessation interventions, or both, in smokers with COPD. We searched all records in the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials. In addition to this electronic search, we searched clinical trial registries for planned, ongoing, and unpublished trials. We searched all databases from their inception. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and of other systematic reviews in relevant topic areas. We searched for errata or retractions from eligible trials on PubMed. We conducted our most recent search in March 2016. We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of any behavioural or pharmacological treatment, or both, in smokers with COPD reporting at least six months of follow-up abstinence rates. Two review authors independently extracted the data and performed the methodological quality assessment for each study. We resolved any disagreements by consensus. We included 16 studies (involving 13,123 participants) in this systematic review, two of which were of high quality. These two studies showed that nicotine sublingual tablet and varenicline increased the quit rate over placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 5.24) and RR 3.34 (95% CI 1.88 to 5.92)). Pooled results of two studies also showed a positive effect of bupropion compared with placebo (RR 2.03 (95% CI 1.26 to 3.28)). When pooling these four studies, we found high-quality evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy plus high-intensity behavioural treatment compared with placebo plus high-intensity behavioural treatment (RR 2.53 (95% CI 1.83 to 3.50)). Furthermore, we found some evidence that high-intensity behavioural treatment increased abstinence rates when compared with usual care (RR 25.38 (95% CI 8.03 to 80.22)) or low-intensity behavioural treatment (RR 2.18 (95% CI 1.05 to 4.49)). Finally, the results showed effectiveness of various combinations of psychosocial and pharmacological interventions. We found high-quality evidence in a meta-analysis including four (1,540 participants) of the 16 included studies that a combination of behavioural treatment and pharmacotherapy is effective in helping smokers with COPD to quit smoking. Furthermore, we conclude that there is no convincing evidence for preferring any particular form of behavioural or pharmacological treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 454 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 450 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 13%
Student > Bachelor 52 11%
Researcher 42 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 34 7%
Other 88 19%
Unknown 146 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 145 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 11%
Psychology 17 4%
Social Sciences 17 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 4%
Other 51 11%
Unknown 155 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2022.
All research outputs
#2,077,762
of 25,381,384 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,435
of 12,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,636
of 353,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#99
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,384 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,574 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.