Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acupuncture is promoted as a treatment for smoking cessation, and is believed to reduce withdrawal symptoms. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of acupuncture in smoking cessation in comparison with: a) sham acupuncture b) other interventions c) no intervention. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, Medline, PsycLit, Dissertation Abstracts, Health Planning and Administration, Social SciSearch, Smoking & Health, Embase, Biological Abstracts and DRUG. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing a form of acupuncture with either sham acupuncture, another intervention or no intervention for smoking cessation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the type of subjects, the nature of the acupuncture and control procedures, the outcome measures, method of randomisation, and completeness of follow-up. We assessed abstinence from smoking at the earliest time-point (before 6 weeks), at six months and at one year follow-up in patients smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Those lost to follow-up were counted as continuing to smoke. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effects model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 publications involving 20 comparisons. Acupuncture was not superior to sham acupuncture in smoking cessation at any time point. The odds ratio (OR) for early outcomes was 1.22 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.49); the OR after 6 months was 1.38 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 2.11) and after 12 months 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.43). Similarly, when acupuncture was compared with other anti-smoking interventions, there were no differences in outcome at any time point. Acupuncture appeared to be superior to no intervention in the early results, but this difference was not sustained. The results with different acupuncture techniques do not show any one particular method (i.e. auricular acupuncture or non-auricular acupuncture) to be superior to control intervention. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence that acupuncture is effective for smoking cessation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".