Literature DB >> 17346605

Hypertension patients participating in trials differ in many aspects from patients treated in general practices.

Annemarie A Uijen1, J Carel Bakx, Henk G A Mokkink, Chris van Weel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine to what extent participants in randomized controlled hypertension trials (RCTs) could be compared to patients with hypertension in general practices. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We analyzed RCTs that had been used in hypertension guidelines or were available for future hypertension guidelines. The characteristics of the participants of these RCTs were compared with those of the patients with hypertension in general practices. In addition, inclusion and exclusion criteria of the RCTs were applied to the hypertension patients in the general practices.
RESULTS: Twenty-one trials were analyzed. Participants' characteristics often differed from those of the patients with hypertension in general practices, in particular in the older trials where the participants showed lower cardiovascular risk. More recent trials showed participants' profiles that better reflected those of the patients under treatment in a general practice. Less than half of the patients undergoing treatment in a general practice would have been included in the hypertension trials.
CONCLUSION: Participants taking part in trials differed from patients with hypertension in a general practice in a number of important aspects. This hampers their external validity. Inclusion of participants with comorbidity and other general practice characteristics would improve translation of study findings to daily practice recommendations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17346605     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.05.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  11 in total

1.  Who Receives Nalmefene and How Does It Work in the Real World? A Single-Arm, Phase IV Study of Nalmefene in Alcohol Dependent Outpatients: Baseline and 1-Month Results.

Authors:  Pablo Barrio; Lluisa Ortega; Josep Guardia; Carlos Roncero; Lara Yuguero; Antoni Gual
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.859

2.  EFFICACY-TO-EFFECTIVENESS CLINICAL TRIALS.

Authors:  Harry P Selker; Sheeona Gorman; Kenneth I Kaitin
Journal:  Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc       Date:  2018

3.  SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Peter C Gøtzsche; Douglas G Altman; Howard Mann; Jesse A Berlin; Kay Dickersin; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Kenneth F Schulz; Wendy R Parulekar; Karmela Krleza-Jeric; Andreas Laupacis; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-01-08

Review 4.  Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in older adults: a systematic review.

Authors:  Leah M Goeres; Craig D Williams; Elizabeth Eckstrom; David S H Lee
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 5.  General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lasse T Krogsbøll; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Christian Grønhøj Larsen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-11-20

6.  Reporting of eligibility criteria of randomised trials: cohort study comparing trial protocols with subsequent articles.

Authors:  Anette Blümle; Joerg J Meerpohl; Gerta Rücker; Gerd Antes; Martin Schumacher; Erik von Elm
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-04-05

7.  General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease.

Authors:  Lasse T Krogsbøll; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-01-31

8.  The external validity of published randomized controlled trials in primary care.

Authors:  Ritu Jones; Robert O Jones; Colin McCowan; Alan A Montgomery; Tom Fahey
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2009-01-19       Impact factor: 2.497

9.  A literature review on the representativeness of randomized controlled trial samples and implications for the external validity of trial results.

Authors:  Tessa Kennedy-Martin; Sarah Curtis; Douglas Faries; Susan Robinson; Joseph Johnston
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Assessing the external validity of a randomized controlled trial of anthelminthics in mothers and their children in Entebbe, Uganda.

Authors:  James D Millard; Lawrence Muhangi; Moses Sewankambo; Juliet Ndibazza; Alison M Elliott; Emily L Webb
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.