Could the use of biochemical validation of smoking abstinence introduce a confound into the interpretation of randomized controlled trials of tobacco cessation?

Addiction

Volumn 108, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 827-828

  Cunningham, John Alastair ^a,b   Kushnir, Vladyslav ^a  

^a CENTRE FOR ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biochemical validation; Clinical trials; Confound; Randomized controlled trials; Smoking abstinence; Tobacco cessation

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REPRODUCIBILITY; SMOKING CESSATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; LETTER; METHODOLOGY;

BIOMARKERS; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SMOKING CESSATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS;

EID: 84891471574     PISSN: 09652140     EISSN: 13600443     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/add.12111     Document Type: Letter

References (4)

1. McCambridge J., de Bruin M.,Witton J. The effects of demand characteristics on research participant behaviours in nonlaboratory settings: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 2012; 7: e39116.
2. Wolfe F., Michaud K. The Hawthorne effect, sponsored trials, and the overestimation of treatment effectiveness. J Rheumatol 2010; 37: 2216-20.
3. McCarney R., Warner J., Iliffe S., van Haselen R., Griffin M., Fisher P. The Hawthorne effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 30.
4. West R., Hajek P., Stead L., Stapleton J. Outcome criteria in smoking cessation trials: proposal for a common standard. Addiction 2005; 100: 299-303.