Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34789314›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled equivalence trial of prescribing policy to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension.

Amy Rogers, Angela Flynn, Isla S Mackenzie, Lewis McConnachie, Rebecca Barr, Robert W V Flynn, Steve Morant, Thomas M MacDonald, Alexander Doney

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Amy RogersMEMO Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK. a.rogers@dundee.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5207-7032
Angela FlynnMEMO Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Isla S MackenzieMEMO Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Lewis McConnachieMEMO Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Rebecca BarrMEMO Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Robert W V FlynnMEMO Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Steve MorantMEMO Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Thomas M MacDonaldMEMO Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Alexander DoneyMEMO Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.

Funding

CSO Scotland CGA/18/36
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHealthcare systems must use treatments that are effective and safe. Regulators licensed many currently used older medications before introducing the stringent evidential requirements imposed on modern treatments. Also, there has been little encouragement to carry out within-class, head-to-head comparisons of licensed medicines. For commonly prescribed drugs, even small differences in effectiveness or safety could have significant public health implications. However, conventional clinical trials that randomise individual subjects are costly and unwieldy. Such trials are also often criticised as having low external validity. We describe an approach to rapidly generate externally valid evidence of comparative safety and effectiveness using the example of two widely used diuretics for the management of hypertension. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The EVIDENCE (Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care) study has a prospective, cluster-randomised, open-label, blinded end-point design. By randomising prescribing policy in primary care practices, the study compares the safety and effectiveness of commonly used diuretics in treating hypertension. Participating practices are randomised 1:1 to a policy of prescribing either indapamide or bendroflumethiazide when clinically indicated. Suitable patients who are not already taking the policy diuretic are switched accordingly. All patients taking the study medications are written to explaining the rationale for changing the prescribing policy and notifying them they can opt-out of any switch. The prescribing policies' effectiveness and safety will be compared using rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (hospitalisation with myocardial infarction, heart failure or stroke or cardiovascular death), routinely collected in national healthcare administrative datasets. The study will seek to recruit 250 practices to provide a study population of approximately 50,000 individuals with a mean follow-up time of two years. A primary intention-to-treat time-to-event analysis will be used to estimate the relative effect of the two policies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: EVIDENCE has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (17/ES/0016, current approved protocol version 5, 26 August 2021). The results will be disseminated widely in peer reviewed journals, guideline committees, National Health Service (NHS) organisations and patient groups.

trial registrationISRCTN 46635087 . Registered on 11 August 2017 (pre-recruitment).

Indexed as

HypertensionSodium Chloride Symporter InhibitorsDiureticsHumansPolicyProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicState MedicineThiazidesDiureticsSodium Chloride Symporter InhibitorsThiazidesComparative effectiveness researchDrug prescriptionsHypertensionMedical record linkagePrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID34789314
PMCPMC8596935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.