ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy of different non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, VIP and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation from inception to November, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; then, network meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 15.1 software. ResultsA total of 27 RCTs involving 14 interventions were included. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that compared with conventional advice, video counseling (OR=2.34, 95%CI 1.32 to 4.15), mobile phone text message (OR=1.82, 95%CI 1.03 to 3.20), motivational interview (OR=2.00, 95%CI 1.11 to 3.59) and health education (OR=3.40, 95%CI 1.52 to 7.57) were higher in quitting rate (P<0.05). The sort results showed that health education was the most likely to be the best intervention (86.20%), followed by video consultation (74.10%). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that the smoking cessation effects of health education, video counseling, telephone counseling, mobile phone text message and motivational interview. Among them, health education may be the best. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
In response to the specific requirements of nutrition research, Schwingshackl’s research group developed the NutriGrade grading system, which independently assessed the quality of evidence in randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in nutrition, aiming to summarize the associations or effects between different nutritional factors and outcomes and meet the specific needs of evidence users. It has the advantages of novel classification, quantifiability, independence and pertinence, and it has better consistency, fairness, reliability and feasibility. Well-designed prospective cohort studies are more feasible in the field of nutrition than randomized controlled trials. The grading of the evidence quality for cohort studies included the following eight items: a) risk of bias, study quality, and study limitations; b) precision; c) heterogeneity; d) directness; e) publication bias; f) funding bias; g) effect size; and h) dose-response. Based on the evaluation results of the above items, the evidence quality could be divided into four grades: high (8-10), moderate (<8), low (<6), and very low (<4). The purpose of this paper was to introduce the basic principles, specific contents, and application methods of the NutriGrade grading system for cohort studies and cite examples to provide references for relevant researchers.