Literature DB >> 7104177

Sample size for short-term trials of antihypertensive drugs.

S Freestone, J H Silas, L E Ramsay.   

Abstract

1 Controlled trials of antihypertensive drugs published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology during 1979 and 1980 were examined. Studies comparing two or more active drugs or dosage regimens nearly always failed to separate and treatments significantly. The sample size (mean 19 patients) and power of these studies were too low. 2 When planning such studies the aims should be a power of at least 0.8; significance 0.05 or less; and to detect a difference between treatments of 10/5 mmHg, or 6.7 mmHg mean arterial pressure (MAP). The sample size needed can be derived readily from a nomogram if the standard deviation of differences (SDD) between BP measurements under trial conditions is known. 3 In five studies the SDDs were fairly constant despite different observers, patient groups and measuring devices, at approximately 14 mmHg systolic, 9 mmHg diastolic, and 9 mmHg MAP. Use of three BP measurements at each visit reduced the SDD by about 1 mmHg, and would reduce the sample size required by about 20%. Replicate BP measurements at separate visits would be expected to have a larger effect on the power of the study. 4 Published studies with negative results should give an estimate of the power of the study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7104177      PMCID: PMC1427750          DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1982.tb01971.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0306-5251            Impact factor:   4.335


  5 in total

1.  The implications of blood pressure variability for clinical and screening purposes.

Authors:  B Rosner; B F Polk
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1979

2.  The two-period cross-over clinical trial.

Authors:  M Hills; P Armitage
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1979-07       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Clinical evaluation of Dinamap 845 automated blood pressure recorder.

Authors:  J H Silas; A T Barker; L E Ramsay
Journal:  Br Heart J       Date:  1980-02

4.  Statistics and ethics in medical research: III How large a sample?

Authors:  D G Altman
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1980-11-15

5.  The variability of measurements of casual blood pressure. I. A laboratory study.

Authors:  P Armitage; G A Rose
Journal:  Clin Sci       Date:  1966-04       Impact factor: 6.124

  5 in total
  12 in total

1.  A comparison of diltiazem and metoprolol in hypertension. Swedish Diltiazem-Metoprolol Multicentre Study Group.

Authors:  T Hedner; T Thulin; S Gustafsson; S O Olsson
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Beneficial effects of nebivolol in comparison with atenolol on safety and tolerability in essential hypertension.

Authors:  Vivek V Bhosale; S C Inamdar; Karande V B; Burute S R; Murthy M B; Ghatak A
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2014-06-20

3.  Ambulatory pressure monitoring in the assessment of antihypertensive therapy.

Authors:  A J Coats; J Conway; V K Somers; J E Isea; P Sleight
Journal:  Cardiovasc Drugs Ther       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 3.727

Review 4.  Development of new drugs in man: a review.

Authors:  I B Davies; I M Grind; A Pottage; P Turner
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1986-02       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Beta blockers and flat dose response to thiazide in hypertension.

Authors:  L E Ramsay
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1983-07-09

6.  Effects of diltiazem and metoprolol on blood pressure, adverse symptoms and general well-being. The Swedish Diltiazem-Metoprolol Multi-Centre Study Group.

Authors:  C Dahlöf; T Hedner; T Thulin; S Gustafsson; S O Olsson
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 2.953

7.  Comparison of nifedipine, prazosin and hydralazine added to treatment of hypertensive patients uncontrolled by thiazide diuretic plus beta-blocker.

Authors:  L E Ramsay; L Parnell; P C Waller
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 2.401

8.  Xipamide: no advantage over bendrofluazide in hypertension.

Authors:  L E Ramsay; S Freestone
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 4.335

9.  Ketanserin in essential hypertension: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Authors:  H A Cameron; L E Ramsay
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 2.401

10.  Ketanserin in essential hypertension: use as monotherapy and in combination with a diuretic or beta-adrenoceptor antagonist.

Authors:  H A Cameron; P C Waller; L E Ramsay
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 4.335

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.