The External Validity of Randomized Controlled Trials of Hypertension within China: from the Perspective of Sample Representation

Abstract

ObjectiveTo explore external validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of hypertension within China from the view of sample representation. MethodsComprehensive literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCTR) et al and advanced search strategies were used to locate hypertension RCTs as well as observational studies conducted in China during 1996 to 2009 synchronously. The risk of bias in RCTs and observational studies was assessed by two modified scales respectively, and then both types of studies with 3 or more grading scores were included for the purpose of evaluating of external validity. Following that the study characteristics relative to sample representation were extracted from RCTs and observational studies synchronously, and the later were taken as external references for validating sample representation of RCTs. Results226 hypertension RCTs and 21 observational studies were included for final analysis. Comparing samples with observational studies, the mean age of samples within RCTs was 54.46 years, significantly lower than that of observational studies (66.35 years) (P=0.002). The average disease course in patients of RCTs was 3.89 years and grade III hypertensive patients accounted for 17%; both were lower than that of the observational studies (12.96 years, P<0.001; 34%, P=0.026 respectively). In addition, the proportions of patients with complications due to heart failure, stroke, diabetes, or coronary heart disease in RCTs were 8%, 5%, 12% and 11% correspondingly, all of which were significantly less than that of observational studies (11%, 18%, 17% and 29%). ConclusionSample characteristics within hypertension RCTs were significantly different from those in observational studies. The samples in most RCTs were under-represented. It’s feasible to take samples of observational studies as a mirror of the actual composition of hypertension patients in the real world, if the reporting of observational studies is abundant and available.

Traditional Chinese Patent Medicine for Acute Ischemic Stroke

“…The quality scores were calculated in keeping with the methods and principles applied in previous researches 19–21 for both these 2 tools as follows: 1 point was awarded when the answer was “Yes”; otherwise, 0 points were awarded. The total scores were obtained.…”

“…Two tools, “A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews” (AMSTAR) 17 and the Oxman-Guyatt Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), 18 were used by 2 authors (ZX and LXT) independently to rate the methodological quality of those included SRs. The quality scores were calculated in keeping with the methods and principles applied in previous researches 19 – 21 for both these 2 tools as follows: 1 point was awarded when the answer was “Yes”; otherwise, 0 points were awarded. The total scores were obtained.…”

GRADE in Systematic Reviews of Acupuncture for Stroke Rehabilitation: Recommendations based on High-Quality Evidence

“…The methodological quality of each SR was independently assessed by two reviewers using “A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews” (AMSTAR 32 ) and the Oxman-Guyatt Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) 33 , which contain 11 and 9 assessment criteria, respectively. Quality scores for both AMSTAR and OQAQ were calculated in accordance with the principles used in previous studies 34 35 36 as follows: one point was awarded for each answer of “Yes”, and 0 points were awarded for all other cases. Total scores were obtained after the two tools were used.…”

Development of minimum reporting sets of patient characteristics in epidemiological research: a methodological systematic review

“…Almost all studies (91.3%, n=21) report the final CPCS. Studies that develop a CPCS for in registries often have more items than those developing a CPCS for epidemiological studies (26 vs 17 [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]) (Table 4).…”

“…Lack of adequate reporting of important prognostic factors was also highlighted by Wertli et al (2013), when they assessed 84 low back pain trials and found that almost half of them incompletely reported variables that are of prognostic importance, even with easily obtainable variables such as age or comorbidities (13). Similar issues also prevalent in many other medical fields, including asthma, diabetes, hypertension, or colorectal cancer (14)(15)(16)(17)(18).…”