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

Objective To explore external validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of hypertension within China from the view of sample representation. Methods Comprehensive 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. Results 226 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%). Conclusion Sample 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.

[1]  J P Vandenbroucke,et al.  How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach. , 2010, International journal of epidemiology.

[2]  D. Cook,et al.  Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? , 1998, The Lancet.

[3]  R. J. Hayes,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. , 1995, JAMA.

[4]  Jeremy Grimshaw,et al.  AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  Russell E. Glasgow,et al.  External validity: We need to do more , 2006 .

[6]  P. Rothwell,et al.  External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” , 2005, The Lancet.

[7]  G. Antes.  [The evidence base of clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessments and patient information as a basis for clinical decision-making]. , 2004, Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung und Qualitatssicherung.

[8]  Russell E. Glasgow,et al.  Evaluating the Relevance, Generalization, and Applicability of Research , 2006, Evaluation & the health professions.

[9]  A. Michalsen,et al.  Checklist for the qualitative evaluation of clinical studies with particular focus on external validity and model validity , 2006, BMC medical research methodology.

[10]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[11]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research , 2000 .

[12]  Jatinder Singh,et al.  Critical appraisal skills programme , 2013 .

[13]  Pim Cuijpers,et al.  Adapting and disseminating effective public health interventions in another country: towards a systematic approach. , 2005, European journal of public health.

[14]  R. Crownover.  Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America: Preface , 1999 .

[15]  K. Søballe,et al.  “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”: External validity of a randomized controlled trial involving 130 patients scheduled for primary total hip replacement , 2007 .

[16]  M. Meldrum,et al.  A brief history of the randomized controlled trial. From oranges and lemons to the gold standard. , 2000, Hematology/oncology clinics of North America.

[17]  D. Moher,et al.  Neglected external validity in reports of randomized trials: the example of hip and knee osteoarthritis. , 2009, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[18]  C. Metge.  What comes after producing the evidence? The importance of external validity to translating science to practice. , 2011, Clinical therapeutics.

[19]  Geoff Cumming,et al.  Inference by eye: Reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  P. Rothwell,et al.  Factors That Can Affect the External Validity of Randomised Controlled Trials , 2006, PLoS clinical trials.

[21]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Assessing equity in clinical practice guidelines. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  Lisa M Klesges,et al.  The future of health behavior change research: What is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice? , 2004, Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

[23]  Michele Tarsilla.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation.

[24]  S Kumanyika,et al.  Obesity prevention: a proposed framework for translating evidence into action , 2005, Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity.

[25]  P. Tugwell,et al.  The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses , 2014 .

[26]  Helen E. D. Burchett,et al.  How do we know when research from one setting can be useful in another? A review of external validity, applicability and transferability frameworks , 2011, Journal of health services research & policy.

[27]  T C Chalmers,et al.  The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 "negative" trials. , 1978, The New England journal of medicine.