Thiazide diuretics alone or in combination with a potassium-sparing diuretic on blood pressure-lowering in patients with primary hypertension: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The use of thiazide (T) diuretics for the treatment of hypertension may be associated with adverse metabolic effects, which can be minimized by combining thiazides with potassium-sparing (PS) diuretics. The additional blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect provided by the addition of a PS diuretic is unclear. Due to a large number of drugs in the T diuretics class, and the possible difference between them, there is a need to identify the best available evidence for health decision-making. This systematic review with network meta-analysis aims to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of T diuretics alone or in combination with a PS diuretic in patients with primary hypertension, as well as the safety of such drugs through the measurement of drug-related adverse events. METHODS: A comprehensive electronic search will be conducted in six electronic bibliographic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs), a registration database ( ClinicalTrials.gov ), and Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC [ProQuest]), published from inception to the date of the search. The search will be updated towards the end of the review. A hand search of the reference sections of the included studies and cited studies will also be performed. In case of missing data, authors will be contacted by e-mail or academic social networking sites whenever possible. To be included in the review, studies must be double-blind randomized controlled trials evaluating T diuretics alone or in combination with PS diuretics in patients with primary hypertension. The primary outcome measure will be office BP. Ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), non-melanoma skin cancer, major adverse cardiovascular events, laboratory parameters, and the number of withdrawals will be included as secondary outcomes. The results will be quantitatively summarized using differences between the mean change from baseline or differences between means for quantitative outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes. Results will be presented as mean or relative risk with credible intervals through a league table. The treatments will also be ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve method. The risk of bias will be assessed through the RoB 1.0 tool. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this review will be the first to synthesize currently available evidence on the antihypertensive efficacy of different T diuretics alone or in combination with PS diuretics in adults with hypertension. The goals of hypertension treatment are to control high BP and to reduce associated cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, using the most appropriate therapy. Thiazides are widely used for pharmacological treatment due to their demonstrated effectiveness in reducing BP, favorable safety profile, and low cost. The results of this study will provide evidence regarding the best therapeutic strategies with T and PS diuretics, evidencing interventions with better antihypertensive efficacy and safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review and network meta-analysis was prospectively registered at the PROSPERO database ( CRD42018118492 ).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,039 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».