Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The tobacco addiction review group maintains 15 systematic reviews of interventions for smoking cessation. The reviews cover almost all of the interventions that have been studied in randomised trials. We hypothesized that some users would prefer a single, non-technical summary of the evidence on how to stop smoking (including comparisons between methods) to scrutiny of individual reviews. We aimed to write an overview of methods for smoking cessation to act as a bridge from the reviews to users within or without the Cochrane Library (see abstracts numbers 2, 34, 65, 66).
Methods: We produced a narrative overview including relevant background, a guide to interpretation of the statistical methods, a description of the findings for each intervention and a discussion of comparisons between different methods where data were available. In keeping with the philosophy of the Cochrane Collaboration, we aimed to present the evidence rather than to write a guideline or make recommendations.
Results: We were able to summarise the findings of the 15 reviews in about 2000 words. We included measures of effect for each intervention, but no data from individual studies or graphical summaries of the evidence. The review was written in Microsoft Word with hypertext links to Cochrane abstracts on the Web. It functions as a freestanding or web-based document. The document would have been more effective with direct links to the evidence contained in the individual reviews.
Conclusions: Smoking cessation is a comparatively small topic. The Cochrane reviews provide evidence of the efficacy for most of the available interventions. It was practical to provide a comprehensive clinical overview based almost entirely on Cochrane reviews. As the Cochrane Library grows, this will be true of more topics. Such overviews could form part of the Cochrane Library. Alternatively, third parties may draw on Cochrane reviews to publish overviews elsewhere. Standardisation of format and software to support it are important issues if the Collaboration opts to provide summary overviews within the Cochrane Library.
Methods: We produced a narrative overview including relevant background, a guide to interpretation of the statistical methods, a description of the findings for each intervention and a discussion of comparisons between different methods where data were available. In keeping with the philosophy of the Cochrane Collaboration, we aimed to present the evidence rather than to write a guideline or make recommendations.
Results: We were able to summarise the findings of the 15 reviews in about 2000 words. We included measures of effect for each intervention, but no data from individual studies or graphical summaries of the evidence. The review was written in Microsoft Word with hypertext links to Cochrane abstracts on the Web. It functions as a freestanding or web-based document. The document would have been more effective with direct links to the evidence contained in the individual reviews.
Conclusions: Smoking cessation is a comparatively small topic. The Cochrane reviews provide evidence of the efficacy for most of the available interventions. It was practical to provide a comprehensive clinical overview based almost entirely on Cochrane reviews. As the Cochrane Library grows, this will be true of more topics. Such overviews could form part of the Cochrane Library. Alternatively, third parties may draw on Cochrane reviews to publish overviews elsewhere. Standardisation of format and software to support it are important issues if the Collaboration opts to provide summary overviews within the Cochrane Library.