Objective: A network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials was conducted to investigate the effects of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation. Methods: English databases were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation. The risk of bias for the included trials was assessed using Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis, and GRADE approach was used to assess the evidence credibility on the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation. Results: A total of 159 studies involving 60,285 smokers were included in the network meta-analysis. The analysis involved 15 interventions and which yielded 105 pairs of comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline was more helpful for smoking cessation than other monotherapies, such as nicotine replacement therapy [Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.16, 1.73)] and bupropion [OR = 1.52, 95% CI (1.22, 1.89)]. Furthermore, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy in achieving smoking cessation, such as varenicline plus bupropion over bupropion [OR = 2.00, 95% CI (1.11, 3.61)], varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy over nicotine replacement therapy [OR = 1.84, 95% CI (1.07, 3.18)], and nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine over naltrexone [OR = 6.29, 95% CI (1.59, 24.90)]. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention. Conclusion: Most pharmacological interventions demonstrated a benefit in smoking cessation compared with placebo, whether monotherapy or combination therapy. Moreover, confirmed evidence suggested that some combination treatments, such as varenicline plus bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine have a higher probability of being the best smoking cessation in

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of guidelines for rehabilitation of post-stroke aphasia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) instrument and identify consistency of different guidelines. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken from inception to October 2018. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts, and assessed eligible guidelines using the AGREE-II. Agreement among reviewers was measured by using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: From 5008 records screened, 8 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. The quality of guidelines was heterogeneous. Three guidelines were rated high (6.5) across; the highest rated domain was "scope and purpose" (median score 95.8%); the lowest rated domain was "rigor of development" (median score 67.2%). An overall high degree of agreement among reviewers to each domain was observed (ICC ranged from 0.60 to 0.99). The speech language therapy was recommended in 3 guidelines. Four guidelines described group treatment was beneficial for the continuum of care. However, other therapies for aphasia varied in the level of detail across guidelines. Conclusions: Our study indicated the quality of guidelines for post-stroke aphasia needed to be improved. Moreover, the treatment recommendations of aphasia existed discrepancy among the included guidelines. Therefore, it is suggested to pay more attention on the rigor of methodology and applicability during the process of the formulation of guideline. Future research should focus on the effectiveness, intensity, and duration of treatment measures.