NA 2.5 Is the setting applicable to the UK? ++ Comments: Did the setting differ significantly from the UK? + − NR NA Section 3: Outcomes 3.1 Were the outcome measures and procedures reliable? ++ Comments: Were outcome measures subjective or objective (e.g. biochemically + validated nicotine levels ++ vs self-reported smoking −)? − How reliable were outcome measures (e.g. inter- or intra-rater reliability NR scores)? NA Was there any indication that measures had been validated (e.g. validated against a gold standard measure or assessed for content validity)? 3.2 Were the outcome measurements complete? ++ Comments: Were all or most of the study participants who met the defined study + outcome definitions likely to have been identified? − NR NA 3.3 Were all the important outcomes assessed? ++ Comments: Were all the important benefits and harms assessed? + Was it possible to determine the overall balance of benefits and harms of − the intervention versus comparison? NR NA 3.4 Was there a similar follow-up time in exposure and comparison groups? ++ Comments: If groups are followed for different lengths of time, then more events are + likely to occur in the group followed-up for longer distorting the comparison. − Analyses can be adjusted to allow for differences in length of follow-up (e.g.
NA 2.5 Is the setting applicable to the UK? Did the setting differ significantly from the UK? ++ + − NR NA Comments: Section 3: Outcomes 3.1 Were the outcome measures and procedures reliable? Were outcome measures subjective or objective (e.g. biochemically validated nicotine levels ++ vs self-reported smoking −)? How reliable were outcome measures (e.g. inter- or intra-rater reliability scores)? Was there any indication that measures had been validated (e.g. validated against a gold standard measure or assessed for content validity)? ++ + − NR NA Comments: 3.2 Were the outcome measurements complete? Were all or most of the study participants who met the defined study outcome definitions likely to have been identified? ++ + − NR NA Comments: 3.3 Were all the important outcomes assessed? Were all the important benefits and harms assessed? Was it possible to determine the overall balance of benefits and harms of the intervention versus comparison? ++ + − NR NA Comments: 3.4 Was there a similar follow-up time in exposure and comparison groups? If groups are followed for different lengths of time, then more events are likely to occur in the group followed-up for longer distorting the comparison. Analyses can be adjusted to allow for differences in length of follow-up (e.g. ++ + − Comments: