ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2015
The relationship between external and internal validity of randomized controlled trials: A sample of hypertension trials from China.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the relationship between the external validity and the internal validity of hypertension RCTs conducted in China.
methodsComprehensive literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCTR), CBMdisc (Chinese biomedical literature database), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure/China Academic Journals Full-text Database) and VIP (Chinese scientific journals database) as well as advanced search strategies were used to locate hypertension RCTs. The risk of bias in RCTs was assessed by a modified scale, Jadad scale respectively, and then studies with 3 or more grading scores were included for the purpose of evaluating of external validity. A data extract form including 4 domains and 25 items was used to explore relationship of the external validity and the internal validity. Statistic analyses were performed by using SPSS software, version 21.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL).
results226 hypertension RCTs were included for final analysis. RCTs conducted in university affiliated hospitals (P < 0.001) or secondary/tertiary hospitals (P < 0.001) were scored at higher internal validity. Multi-center studies (median = 4.0, IQR = 2.0) were scored higher internal validity score than single-center studies (median = 3.0, IQR = 1.0) (P < 0.001). Funding-supported trials had better methodological quality (P < 0.001). In addition, the reporting of inclusion criteria also leads to better internal validity (P = 0.004). Multivariate regression indicated sample size, industry-funding, quality of life (QOL) taken as measure and the university affiliated hospital as trial setting had statistical significance (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.001, P = 0.006 respectively).
conclusionSeveral components relate to the external validity of RCTs do associate with the internal validity, that do not stand in an easy relationship to each other. Regarding the poor reporting, other possible links between two variables need to trace in the future methodological researches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.