The external validity of randomized controlled trials of hypertension within China: From the perspective of sample representation

PLoS ONE

Volumn 8, Issue 12, 2013, Pages

  Zhang, Xin ^a   Wu, Yuxia ^a,b   Kang, Deying ^a   Wang, Jialiang ^a   Hong, Qi ^a   Peng, Le ^a  

^a SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b Department of Internal Medicine   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANGIOTENSIN RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKING AGENT;

AGE; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE THERAPY; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CHINA; CLINICAL STUDY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIABETES MELLITUS; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE ONTOLOGY; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; GENDER; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEART FAILURE; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; INTERNAL VALIDITY; ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE; JADAD SCALE; KAPPA STATISTICS; KIDNEY FAILURE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RATING SCALE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION PROCESS;

AGE FACTORS; CHINA; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; MALE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK FACTORS; SELECTION BIAS; SEX FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84891958276     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082324     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Rothwell PM. (2005) External validity of randomized controlled trials: 'to whom do the results of this trial apply?. Lancet 365:82-93. (Pubitemid 40082150)
2. Marcia LM (2000) A brief history of the randomized controlled trial - from oranges and lemons to the gold standard 14. Hematology-Oncology Clinics of North America. pp. 745-760.
3. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR et al. (1998) Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352:609-613. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736 (98) 01085-X. PubMed: 9746022. (Pubitemid 28380142)
4. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273:408-412. doi:10.1001/jama.1995. 03520290060030. PubMed: 7823387.
5. Antes G (2004) The evidence base of clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessments and patient information as a basis for clinical decision-making. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 98(3):180-214. discussion:
6. Glasgow RE, Green LW, Klesges LM, Abrams DB, Fisher EB et al. (2006) External validity: we need to do more. Ann Behav Med 31:105-108. doi:10.1207/s15324796abm3102-1. PubMed: 16542124.
7. Dekkers OM, von Elm E, Algra A, Romijn JA, Vandenbroucke JP (2010) How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach. Int J Epidemiol 39(1):89-94. doi:10.1093/ije/dyp174. PubMed: 19376882.
8. Burchett H, Umoquit M, Dobrow M (2011) How do we know when research from one setting can be useful in another? A review of external validity, applicability and transferability frameworks. J Health Serv Res Policy 16:238-244. doi:10.1258/jhsrp. 2011.010124. PubMed: 21965426.
9. Swinburn B, Gill T, Kumanyika S (2005) Obesity prevention: a proposed framework for translating evidence into action. Obes Rev 6:23-33. doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2005.00184.x. PubMed: 15655036.
10. Ahmad N, Boutron I, Moher D, Pitrou I, Roy C et al. (2009) Neglected External Validity in Reports of Randomized Trials: The Example of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 61:361-369. doi:10.1002/art.24279. PubMed: 19248133.
11. Metge CJ (2011) What comes after producing the evidence? the importance of external validity to translating science to practice. Clin Ther 33:578-580. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.05.050. PubMed: 21665042.
12. Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Bull SS, Estabrooks P (2004) The future of health behavior change research: what is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice? Ann Behav Med 27:3-12. doi:10.1207/s15324796abm2701-2. PubMed: 14979858. (Pubitemid 38095807)
13. Green LW, Glasgow RE (2006) Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof 29:126-153. doi:10.1177/0163278705284445. PubMed: 16510882. (Pubitemid 43797500)
14. Rothwell PM (2006) Factors that can affect the external validity of randomised controlled trials. PLOS. Clin Trials 1(1):e9.
15. Cuijpers P, de Graaf I, Bohlmeijer E (2005) Adapting and disseminating effective public health interventions in another country: Towards a systematic approach. Eur J Public Health 15:166-169. doi:10.1093/eurpub/cki124. PubMed: 15755779. (Pubitemid 40835262)
16. Petersen MK, Andersen KV, Andersen NT, Søballe K (2007) "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. Acta Orthop 78(1):12-18. doi: 10.1080/17453670610013367. PubMed: 17453387. (Pubitemid 46570252)
17. Wu Yuxia, Kang Deying, Hong Qi, Wang Jialiang. (2011) External validity and its evaluation in clinical trials. Chin J Epidemiol 32(5):514-518. (in Chinese).
18. National Center for Cardiovascular Disease Control (2009) Report on cardiovascular disease in China. Beijing: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. (pp. 12-32). pp.
19. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ et al. (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1-12. doi:10.1016/S0197-2456 (96) 90740-0. PubMed: 8721797. (Pubitemid 26120810)
20. The Cochrane Collaboration (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. version 5.1.0. Available: http://www.cochrane- handbook.org.
21. Public Health Resource Unit (2011) Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP): Cohort Studies is a methodological checklist which provides key criteria relevant to cohort studies. Available: http://www.caspuk.net/wp-content/ uploads/2011/11/CASP-Cohort-Appraisal-Checklist-14oct10.pdf.
22. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, et al.. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Available: http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/rtamblyn/.
23. Dans AM, Dans L, Oxman AD, Robinson V, Acuin J et al. (2007) Assessing equity in clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 60:540-546. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.10.008. PubMed: 17493507. (Pubitemid 46705481)
24. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E et al. (2009) AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1013-1020. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009. PubMed: 19230606.
25. Cumming Geoff (2009) Inference by eye: Reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals. Stat Med 28:205-220. doi:10.1002/sim.3471. PubMed: 18991332.
26. Bornhöft G, Maxion-Bergemann S, Wolf U, Kienle GS, Michalsen A et al. (2006) Checklist for the qualitative evaluation of clinical studies with particular focus on external validity and model validity. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:56. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-56. PubMed: 17156475.
27. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. (2000) Methods for Meta-analysis in medical research. Chichester, England: John Wiley?Sons, Ltd.
28. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Kuebler RR (1978) The importance of Beta, the type ? error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized controlled trial. N Engl J Med 299:690-694. doi:10.1056/ NEJM197809282991304. PubMed: 355881. (Pubitemid 9053296)
29. National Revision Committee for Guideline of hypertension prevention and control (2010) China Guideline for hypertension prevention and control version 2010. Beiji China: People's Health Publishing House.