↓ Skip to main content

Identifying and recruiting smokers for preoperative smoking cessation—a systematic review of methods reported in published studies

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
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
Identifying and recruiting smokers for preoperative smoking cessation—a systematic review of methods reported in published studies
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0152-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fujian Song, Tracey J. Brown, Annie Blyth, Vivienne Maskrey, Iain McNamara, Simon Donell

Abstract

Smoking cessation before surgery reduces postoperative complications, and the benefit is positively associated with the duration of being abstinent before a surgical procedure. A key issue in providing preoperative smoking cessation support is to identify people who smoke as early as possible before elective surgery. This review aims to summarise methods used to identify and recruit smokers awaiting elective surgery. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, and references of relevant reviews (up to May 2014) to identify prospective studies that evaluated preoperative smoking cessation programmes. One reviewer extracted and a second reviewer checked data from the included studies. Data extracted from included studies were presented in tables and narratively described. We included 32 relevant studies, including 18 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 non-randomised studies (NRS). Smokers were recruited at preoperative clinics (n = 18), from surgery waiting lists (n = 6), or by general practitioners (n = 1), and the recruitment methods were not explicitly described in seven studies. Time points of preoperative recruitment of smokers was unclear in four studies, less than 4 weeks before surgery in 17 studies, and at least 4 weeks before surgery in only 11 studies. The recruitment rate tended to be lower in RCTs (median 58.2 %, range 9.1 to 90.9 %) than that in NRS (median 99.1 %, range 12.3 to 100 %) and lower in preoperative clinic-based RCTs (median 54.4 %, range 9.1 to 82.4 %) than that in waiting list-based RCTs (median 70.1 %, range 36.8 to 85.0 %). Smokers were recruited at least 4 weeks before surgery in four of the six waiting list-based studies and in only three of the 18 preoperative clinic-based studies. Published studies often inadequately described the methods for recruiting smokers into preoperative smoking cessation programmes. Although smoking cessation at any time is beneficial, many programmes recruited smokers at times very close to scheduled surgery so that the benefit of preoperative smoking cessation may have not been fully effected. Optimal delivery of preoperative smoking cessation remains challenging, and further research is required to develop effective preoperative cessation programmes for smokers awaiting elective operations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Other 3 6%
Librarian 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 17 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Unspecified 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,828,066
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,554
of 1,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,883
of 282,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#26
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 282,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.