Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordHealthGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

Effectiveness and Acceptability of Conversational Agents for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2761raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
7bcb0b5cbebb…check it

INTRODUCTION: Conversational agents (CAs; computer programs that use artificial intelligence to simulate a conversation with users through natural language) have evolved considerably in recent years to support healthcare by providing autonomous, interactive, and accessible services, making them potentially useful for supporting smoking cessation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide an overarching evaluation of their effectiveness and acceptability to inform future development and adopti…

The gain

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials found people using conversational agents for smoking cessation had 1.66 times the odds of abstinence of comparison groups (95% CI 1.33 to 2.07).

What this doesn’t fix

The included studies were diverse in design with mixed quality, evidence of publication bias was identified, and the authors say reporting and agent design need standardization for a more comprehensive evaluation.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Nicotine and Tobacco Researchdoi:10.1093/ntr/ntac281
    Peer-reviewed2022-12-12

What the review found when it combined the studies

These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.

  • Smoking abstinence with conversational agent interventions compared with control groups

    Odds ratio 1.66 (95% CI 1.33 to 2.07)

    7,625 people

    The review’s own words
    The sample-weighted odds ratio indicated that CA interventions significantly increased the odds of abstinence compared to control groups (odds ratio = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.33% to 2.07%, p < .001) (see Figure 2 ).

Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results

Cite this record

v1

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2761, v1: “Effectiveness and Acceptability of Conversational Agents for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2761 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 7bcb0b5cbebb5077…

Change history

1 version

Every change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.

  1. Publishedv17bcb0b5cbebb…

    Certified into the record

Check this record hasn’t been altered

Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page

Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2761 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.