Why 27% more is not 27 extra percentage points
Invented starting proportions explain the arithmetic only; they are not observed trial rates or a calculator for an individual.
| Illustrative starting rate | Rate multiplied by 1.27 |
|---|---|
| 10% | 10% → 12.7%: +2.7 points |
| 20% | 20% → 25.4%: +5.4 points |
What was actually compared
The 2023 Cochrane public summary and abstract describe a patch plus a faster-acting NRT form compared with a single NRT form. The long-term cessation comparison contains 16 studies and 12,169 participants, not all 43,327 people in the wider review. Follow-up was at least six months; participants were mostly adults motivated to quit. Other components of support had to be matched between groups.
How to read the estimate
For this comparison, the abstract reports a risk ratio of 1.27 (95% confidence interval 1.17–1.37), with high-certainty evidence for the cessation outcome. That is a relative comparison of trial groups, not a 27-percentage-point increase and not an individual chance of quitting. Without a baseline quit proportion and comparable setting it gives no single absolute benefit.
Same result, different absolute differences
Illustrative arithmetic, not trial data or a prediction: if 10% of one group reached an outcome, multiplying by a risk ratio of 1.27 gives 12.7%, a difference of 2.7 percentage points. With a 20% starting proportion, the same multiplication gives 25.4%, a 5.4-point difference. The relative ratio stays the same while the absolute difference changes. Neither starting proportion is supplied here as your expected quit rate.
Why that finding does not settle a regimen
High certainty for the cessation outcome does not settle questions that other outcomes or study comparisons answer less fully. Nor does it determine strength, duration, sequence or personal suitability. A group result does not turn any two products into interchangeable alternatives, or transfer the same strategy automatically to pregnancy or another clinical setting.
Check which evidence version you are reading
The review was published in June 2023 and searched to April 2022. Its public abstract, not a full-review reanalysis, is the basis for the figures here. The combination comparison is not a test of every product pair. A qualified local clinician or pharmacist is the appropriate source for actual product instructions; this evidence explanation supplies none.
Sources
The central claims on this page were checked against the sources below.
- Cochrane: Combination NRT: 2023 review, public summary and statistical abstract (search to April 2022)
Sources checked: 2026-10-11
General medicine education. Ask a qualified clinician or pharmacist about the actual product and your circumstances; this page cannot choose treatment or change its instructions.