A Perioperative Smoking Cessation Intervention With Varenicline, Counseling, and Fax Referral to a Telephone Quitline Versus a Brief Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of perioperative interventions to quit smoking with varenicline has not been compared with brief interventions. Our objective was to determine the efficacy of a comprehensive smoking cessation program versus a brief intervention for smoking cessation. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter study, 296 patients were randomized to participate in a smoking cessation program (one 10- to 15-minute counseling session, pharmacotherapy with varenicline, an educational pamphlet, and a fax referral to a telephone quitline); or brief advice and self-referral to a telephone quitline. The primary outcome was the 7-day point prevalence (PP) abstinence at 12 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included abstinence at 1, 3, and 6 months. Multivariable generalized linear regression was used to identify independent variables related to abstinence. RESULTS: The 7-day PP abstinence for the smoking cessation program versus brief advice group was 42.4% vs 26.2% (relative risk [RR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.25; P = .003) at 12 months. The 7-day PP abstinence at 1, 3, and 6 months was higher in the smoking cessation group versus the brief advice group: 45.7% vs 25.5% (RR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.29-2.49; P < .001), 46.4% vs 26.9% (RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.25-2.37; P< .001), and 45.0% vs 26.2% (RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.24-2.38; P < .001), respectively. Participating in the smoking cessation group predicted abstinence at 12 months (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.12-2.21; P = .0087). CONCLUSIONS: A perioperative smoking cessation program with counseling, pharmacotherapy with varenicline, an educational pamphlet, and a fax referral to a quitline increased abstinence from smoking 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery versus a brief intervention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".