MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145075705 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000009

Acupuncture for smoking cessation

2002· review· en· W2145075705 on OpenAlexaff
AR White, Hagen Rampes, E Ernst

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsVictoria Park
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcupunctureSmoking cessationAcupressurePhysical therapyAbstinenceRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioConfidence intervalMeta-analysisNicotine replacement therapyMEDLINEInternal medicinePsychiatryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.222
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations128
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207