There are many important issues to be considered when looking at a randomized trial: the reader must consider whether the results of the trial can be considered valid, what those results say, and whether those results will assist them in thinking critically about the problem they are trying to solve (Guyatt et al., 1993; Cardiff University, 2016). In the Mohiuddin et al. (2007) study, the researchers attempted to determine the impact of intensive smoking cessation intervention—particularly focusing on whether this programming reduces the mortality that an individual who is high risk for cardiovascular disease experiences (Mohiuddin et al., 2007).
Determining whether the study has a clearly focused question or hypothesis is the first step to analyzing the results of the trial (Cardiff University, 2016). The hypothesis of this particular trial is good: the researchers suggest that an intensive anti-smoking program will assist smokers with cardiovascular disease reduce their risks of mortality associated with that disease. The participants in the study were 209 hospitalized smokers who were split randomly into two groups: one group was provided with normal care, and one was provided with intensive treatment (Mohiuddin et al., 2007). The intensive treatment was a 12-week behavior modification course that focused on creating new habits and complete abstinence from smoking (Mohiuddin et al., 2007). The study used statistical analysis to determine relative risk reduction for participants.
The trial was randomized and the population size relative large, which makes the study a good one. While it was a long-term treatment process that both participants and those administering treatment understood as either traditional or intensive— in other words, the study itself was not blind—the results were blinded, which is an important part of the analysis and the believability of the analysis for this particular type of research study (Mohiuddin et al., 2007). Ethical approval was received for the study as well, which is important for the validity of the study as a whole.
The researchers did a number of follow-ups with the participants in the months after the trial. The first follow-up happened at three months, and then six, twelve, and twenty-four months after the initial trial. The individuals who underwent intensive treatment did much better in the long term than those who only underwent the normal treatment; in the experimental group, after twenty-four months, 33% of the participants had stopped smoking—only 9% of those in the control group had stopped smoking (Mohiuddin et al., 2007). Even more interestingly, forty-one patients from the control group were hospitalized with conditions associated with their smoking and cardiovascular disease; only twenty-five of the individuals in the intensive care group were hospitalized, comparatively (Mohiuddin et al., 2007).
This indicates that there is good reason to believe the validity of this particular piece of research; the trial was controlled and randomized, and although the study was not necessarily blind—it could not be blind, due to the nature of the treatment plans for the two different groups—it was controlled for outside variables. The researchers concluded that smokers who have been hospitalized with problems associated with cardiovascular disease should be treated with an intensive anti-smoking program for a significant period of time (Mohiuddin et al., 2007). The researchers use the time frame of three months as a benchmark, based on the twelve-week minimum and extended treatment paradigm that is explored throughout the study (Mohiuddin et al., 2007). In short, this study provides an excellent insight into potential treatment factors for smokers experiencing a high potential fatality rate due to cardiovascular disease.
REFERENCES
Cardiff University,. (2016). Critical Appraisal Checklists. Retrieved 22 February 2016, from http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/insrv/libraries/sure/checklists.html
Guyatt, G. H., Sackett, D. L., Cook, D. J., Guyatt, G., Bass, E., Brill-Edwards, P., & Haynes, B. (1993). Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: II. How to Use an Article About Therapy or Prevention A. Are the Results of the Study Valid?.Jama, 270(21), 2598-2601.
Mohiuddin, S. M., Mooss, A. N., Hunter, C. B., Grollmes, T. L., Cloutier, D. A., & Hilleman, D. E. (2007). Intensive smoking cessation intervention reduces mortality in high-risk smokers with cardiovascular disease. CHEST Journal, 131(2), 446-452.
