REVIEW

Effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation: a systematic review

Raphaël Bize¹, Bernard Burnand², Yolanda Mueller², Jacques Cornuz¹

¹ Department of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
² Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr R Bize
Department of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, University of Lausanne, 44 Rue du Bugnon, CH-1011 Lausanne, Switzerland; raphael.bize{at}hospvd.ch

Objective: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment (eg, exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer) as an aid for smoking cessation.

Data sources: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline (1966–2004) and EMBASE (1980–2004).

Study selection: Randomised controlled smoking cessation interventions using biomedical tests with at least 6 months follow-up.

Data extraction: Two reviewers independently screened all search results (titles and abstracts) for possible inclusion. Each reviewer then extracted data from the selected studies, and assessed their methodological quality based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement criteria.

Data synthesis: Of 4049 retrieved references, eight trials were retained for data extraction and analysis. Three trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following ORs and 95% CIs: 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41) and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Measurement of exhaled CO and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.60 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25) and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR (95% CI) of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42). Ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed on light smokers gave an OR (95% CI) of 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31).

Conclusions: Scarcity and limited quality of the current evidence does not support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation as compared with the standard treatment.

Abbreviations: CO, carbon monoxide

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Sanderson, S. C., O'Neill, S. C., White, D. B., Bepler, G., Bastian, L., Lipkus, I. M., McBride, C. M. (2009). Responses to Online GSTM1 Genetic Test Results among Smokers Related to Patients with Lung Cancer: A Pilot Study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 18: 1953-1961 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• McClure, J. B., Ludman, E., Grothaus, L., Pabiniak, C., Richards, J., Mohelnitzky, A. (2009). Immediate and short-term impact of a brief motivational smoking intervention using a biomedical risk assessment: The Get PHIT trial. Nicotine Tob Res 11: 394-403 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Meschia, J. F., Brott, T. G., Hobson, R. W. II (2007). Effect of Office-Based Ultrasonography on Adherence-Reply-I. Mayo Clin Proc. 82: 1141-1141 [Full Text]