This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Terry A. Jacobson, MD
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Philadelphia

JAMA. 1989;262(6):773-774.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

Hughes et al¹ add another well-designed randomized study to the literature on smoking cessation. However, the authors' conclusions about the ineffectiveness of nicotine gum with brief physician counseling need further discussion. First, their sample size had inadequate power to detect a 10% difference in quit rates. They attempt to justify their sample size by commenting that a lower quit rate would not be "clinically significant," given that physician advice alone results in a 5% quit rate. This statement coupled with the results of their survey—that the majority of primary care physicians would not use a medicine if it would only result in a 5% increase in quit rates—highlight the crux of the problem with smoking cessation. One of the major reasons physicians do not counsel smokers, either with or without nicotine gum, is that it is their perception that quit rates of 5% to 10% are . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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