Gutmann Lori B, Sobell Linda Carter, Prevo Melissa H, Toll Benjamin A, Gutwein Cindy Levin, Sobell Mark B, Hyman Scott M
Center for Psychology Studies, Nova Southeastern University, 3301 College Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314, USA.
Addict Behav. 2004 May;29(3):441-63. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.019.
Although several reviews of smoking cessation trials have been published, none have specifically evaluated the adequacy of the studies' reporting practices in terms of describing the intervention and outcome variables used. This review evaluates the reporting procedures of 109 smoking cessation trials published in English language peer-reviewed publications from 1994 through 1998. MedLine and PsychLIT searches were used to identify potential studies. Each study was evaluated as to whether the following information was reported: (a) demographic characteristics, (b) pretreatment smoking variables, (c) study characteristics, (d) descriptions of the clinical trial, (e) follow-up procedures, and (f) posttreatment outcome measures. Although some areas of methodological strength were identified, inadequate reporting of pre- and posttreatment demographic and smoking variables was also evident. Based on this review, several areas in need of further research are identified and discussed. Lastly, consistent with other recent reviews of smoking cessation trials, this review concluded that the smoking field should consider delineating a uniform set of assessment and outcome measures and a minimum follow-up interval.
尽管已经发表了几篇关于戒烟试验的综述,但没有一篇专门从描述所使用的干预措施和结果变量的角度评估这些研究报告方法的充分性。本综述评估了1994年至1998年发表在英文同行评审出版物上的109项戒烟试验的报告程序。通过检索医学文献数据库(MedLine)和心理学文摘数据库(PsychLIT)来确定潜在的研究。对每项研究评估是否报告了以下信息:(a)人口统计学特征,(b)治疗前吸烟变量,(c)研究特征,(d)临床试验描述,(e)随访程序,以及(f)治疗后结果测量。虽然确定了一些方法学优势领域,但治疗前和治疗后的人口统计学和吸烟变量报告不足也很明显。基于本综述,确定并讨论了几个需要进一步研究的领域。最后,与最近其他关于戒烟试验的综述一致,本综述得出结论,吸烟领域应考虑划定一套统一的评估和结果测量方法以及最短随访间隔。