Skip to main content

Table 5 GRADE summary of findings table

From: The effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for socio-economically disadvantaged women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Smoking intervention compared to control condition for smoking cessation in socio-economically disadvantaged women
Patient or population: Smoking cessation in socio-economically disadvantaged women or women living in disadvantaged areas
Setting: Varied
Intervention: Smoking intervention
Comparison: Control condition
Outcomes № of participants (studies) Follow-up Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) Relative effect (95% CI) Anticipated absolute effects
Risk with control condition Risk difference with smoking intervention
Smoking cessation at intervention end 5671 (10 RCTs) LOW a,b,c RR 1.67 (1.45 to 1.94) 82 per 1000 55 more per 1000 (37 more to 77 more)
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio
GRADE working group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
  1. aThe risk of bias table suggests there is some concern in most studies, with high risk of bias in 5 of the 11 studies
  2. bImprecision: the number of events for each outcome was less than 300 in all studies except Gilbert, Glasgow and Manfredi although the effect size is large
  3. cThe funnel plot shows asymmetry suggesting the presence of publication bias