↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
436 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pharmacological interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010078.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim Coleman, Catherine Chamberlain, Mary-Ann Davey, Sue E Cooper, Jo Leonardi-Bee

Abstract

Smoking in pregnancy is a public health problem. When used by non-pregnant smokers, pharmacotherapies (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline) are effective for smoking cessation, however, their efficacy and safety in pregnancy remains unknown. Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), or e-cigarettes, are becoming widely used but their efficacy and safety when used for smoking cessation in pregnancy are also unknown. To determine the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies (including NRT, varenicline and bupropion), other medications, or ENDS when used for smoking cessation in pregnancy. We searched the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 July 2015), checked references of retrieved studies, and contacted authors. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in pregnant women with designs that permit the independent effects of any type of pharmacotherapy or ENDS on smoking cessation to be ascertained were eligible for inclusion.The following RCT designs are included.Placebo-RCTs: any form of NRT, other pharmacotherapy, or ENDS, with or without behavioural support/cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), or brief advice, compared with an identical placebo and behavioural support of similar intensity.RCTs providing a comparison between i) any form of NRT, other pharmacotherapy, or ENDS added to behavioural support/CBT, or brief advice and ii) behavioural support of similar (ideally identical) intensity.Parallel- or cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Quasi-randomised, cross-over and within-participant designs were not, due to the potential biases associated with these designs. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and also independently extracted data and cross checked individual outcomes of this process to ensure accuracy. The primary efficacy outcome was smoking cessation in later pregnancy (in all but one trial, at or around delivery); safety was assessed by 11 outcomes (principally birth outcomes) that indicated neonatal and infant well-being; and we also collated data on adherence with trial treatments. This review includes a total of nine trials which enrolled 2210 pregnant smokers: eight trials of NRT and one trial of bupropion as adjuncts to behavioural support/CBT. The risk of bias was generally low across trials with virtually all domains of the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool being satisfied for the majority of studies. We found no trials investigating varenicline or ENDS. Compared to placebo and non-placebo controls, there was a difference in smoking rates observed in later pregnancy favouring use of NRT (risk ratio (RR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.93, eight studies, 2199 women).  However, subgroup analysis of placebo-RCTs provided a lower RR in favour of NRT (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.66, five studies, 1926 women), whereas within the two non-placebo RCTs there was a strong positive effect of NRT, (RR 8.51, 95% CI 2.05 to 35.28, three studies, 273 women; P value for random-effects subgroup interaction test = 0.01). There were no differences between NRT and control groups in rates of miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth, birthweight, low birthweight, admissions to neonatal intensive care, caesarean section, congenital abnormalities or neonatal death. Compared to placebo group infants, at two years of age, infants born to women who had been randomised to NRT had higher rates of 'survival without developmental impairment' (one trial). Generally, adherence with trial NRT regimens was low. Non-serious side effects observed with NRT included headache, nausea and local reactions (e.g. skin irritation from patches or foul taste from gum), but these data could not be pooled. NRT used in pregnancy for smoking cessation increases smoking cessation rates measured in late pregnancy by approximately 40%. There is evidence, suggesting that when potentially-biased, non-placebo RCTs are excluded from analyses, NRT is no more effective than placebo. There is no evidence that NRT used for smoking cessation in pregnancy has either positive or negative impacts on birth outcomes. However, evidence from the only trial to have followed up infants after birth, suggests use of NRT promotes healthy developmental outcomes in infants. Further research evidence on NRT efficacy and safety is needed, ideally from placebo-controlled RCTs which achieve higher adherence rates and which monitor infants' outcomes into childhood. Accruing data suggests that it would be ethical for future RCTs to investigate higher doses of NRT than those tested in the included studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 436 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 419 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 75 17%
Researcher 66 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 13%
Unspecified 54 12%
Student > Bachelor 48 11%
Other 138 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 172 39%
Unspecified 75 17%
Psychology 45 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 10%
Social Sciences 40 9%
Other 60 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 20 August 2019.
All research outputs
#402,052
of 13,528,187 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,171
of 10,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,728
of 360,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#37
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,528,187 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 10,635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 360,714 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 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.