↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
56 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
237 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004306.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jon O Ebbert, Muhamad Y Elrashidi, Lindsay F Stead

Abstract

Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) can lead to tobacco dependence and long-term use can lead to health problems including periodontal disease, cancer, and cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease. To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of ST use. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialised register in June 2015. Randomized trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions to help users of ST to quit with follow-up of at least six months. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We summarised outcomes as risk ratios (RRs). For subgroups of trials with similar types of intervention and without substantial statistical heterogeneity, we estimated pooled effects using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. We identified 34 trials that met the inclusion criteria, of which nine were new for this update, representing over 16,000 participants. There was moderate quality evidence from two studies suggesting that varenicline increases ST abstinence rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.68, 507 participants). Pooled results from two trials of bupropion did not detect a benefit of treatment at six months or longer (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.44, 293 participants) but the confidence interval was wide. Neither nicotine patch (five trials, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.37, 1083 participants) nor nicotine gum (two trials, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.43, 310 participants) increased abstinence. Pooling five studies of nicotine lozenges did increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.59, 1529 participants) but confidence in this estimate is low as the result is sensitive to the exclusion of three trials which did not use a placebo control.Statistical heterogeneity was evident among the 17 trials of behavioural interventions: eight of them reported statistically and clinically significant benefits; six suggested benefit but with wide CIs and no statistical significance; and three had similar intervention and control quit rates and relatively narrow CIs. Heterogeneity was not explained by study design (individual or cluster randomization), whether participants were selected for interest in quitting, or specific intervention components. In a post hoc subgroup analysis, trials of behavioural interventions incorporating telephone support, with or without oral examination and feedback, were associated with larger effect sizes, but oral examination and feedback alone were not associated with benefit.In one trial an interactive website increased abstinence more than a static website. One trial comparing immediate cessation using nicotine patch versus a reduction approach using either nicotine lozenge or brand switching showed greater success for the abrupt cessation group. Varenicline, nicotine lozenges and behavioural interventions may help ST users to quit. Confidence in results for nicotine lozenges is limited. Confidence in the size of effect from behavioural interventions is limited because the components of behavioural interventions that contribute to their impact are not clear.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 232 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 18%
Researcher 30 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 12%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Other 53 22%
Unknown 44 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 37%
Psychology 22 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 8%
Social Sciences 18 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 58 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 04 September 2020.
All research outputs
#518,864
of 17,897,867 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,198
of 11,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,705
of 292,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#39
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,897,867 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 292,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.