Adapted from Table 3. Baseline and three months or six months values for blood pressure (mmHg) and sodium and potassium excretion (mm per 24 hours) for participants followed up to each time-point.
| Variable |
Baseline |
Three Months |
| Baseline to month three |
Intervention
(N=444) |
Control
(N=450) |
Intervention
(N=444) |
Control
(N=450) |
| Systolic blood pressure |
128.5 (24.7) |
127.3 (26.3) |
124.6 (26.6) |
123.8 (26.0) |
| Diastolic blood pressure |
76.8 13.0) |
75.8 (13.5) |
74.2 (13.7) |
74.0 (14.1) |
| Urinary sodium |
100.9 (44.3) |
103.6 (45.3) |
94.0 (44.5) |
97.5 (42.3) |
| Urinary sodium: potassium |
2.4 (1.2) |
2.4 (1.3) |
2.1 (1.1) |
2.1 (1.1) |
| Urinary sodium: creatinine |
12.4 (5.2) |
12.8 (5.6) |
12.4 (5.2) |
13.0 (5.6) |
| |
Baseline |
Six Months |
| Baseline to month six |
Intervention
(N=399) |
Control
(N=402) |
Intervention
(N=399) |
Control
(N=402) |
| Systolic blood pressure |
129.2 (24.6) |
125.6 (25.5) |
127.9 (27.7) |
127.4 (26.0) |
| Diastolic blood pressure |
76.9 (13.0) |
75.2 (13.3) |
76.0 (14.2) |
78.7 (14.3) |
| Urinary sodium |
100.7 (45.2) |
104.2 (45.5) |
91.8 (41.8) |
89.8 (39.1) |
| Urinary sodium: potassium |
2.4 (1.3) |
2.4 (1.3) |
2.2 (1.2) |
1.9 (1.0) |
| Urinary sodium: creatinine |
12.4 (5.2) |
12.8 (5.6) |
11.9 (5.1) |
11.7 (4.7) |
Results are mean and SD.
Adapted from Table 4. Effect of intervention (control-intervention) on reduction in blood pressure (mmHg) and urinary sodium (UNa) excretion (mmol per 24 hour) at three and six months.
| Variable |
Three Months (N=894) |
Six Months (N=801) |
| Systolic blood pressure |
-0.48 (-5.45 to 4.50)
|
-2.54 (-6.54 to 1.45)
|
| Diastolic blood pressure |
-1.02 (-3.95 to 1.91)
|
-3.95 (-7.11 to -0.78)**
|
| Urinary sodium |
-0.5 (-12.3 to 11.3)
|
6.0 (-4.1 to 16.1) |
| Urinary sodium: creatinine |
-0.01 (-1.35 to 1.32)
|
0.85 (-0.53 to 2.24)
|
| Urinary sodium: potassium |
0.08 (-0.22 to 0.39)
|
0.30 (0.02 to 0.57)*
|
Mean and 95% CI.
Values adjusted for age, sex, locality and BMI using random effect model.
Blood pressure adjusted for time of day.
*P=0.03; **P=0.015.
Other Findings
- The intervention and control groups were comparable for baseline characteristics
- Total salt consumed as measured by UNa was similar (99 vs. 103mmol per day) in rural villages and semi-urban settings
- Urinary K levels were higher in rural villages (58 vs. 40mmol per day; difference 18mmol per day [11 to 26]; P<0.001)
- In semi-urban vs. rural villages people were heavier (BMI 22.3 [4.6] vs. 19.8 [3.2]kg/m2, P<0.001) and had higher BP (129/76 [26/14] vs. 121/72 [25/13]mmHg, P<0.001 for both SBP and DBP)
- The prevalence of HTN increased with age and was more common in semi-urban settings
- Effect of the intervention programme on salt intake.
Change in average sodium excretion
- Varied among villages
- It fell in four out of six villages in the intervention group and in five out of six villages in the control group
- The net intervention effect was a NS change in sodium excretion.
Relationship between urinary sodium and BP
- In all participants, regardless of intervention, there was a consistent relationship between the fall in UNa excretion and the fall in BP when adjusting for confounders
- There was a significant and positive relationship between the level of salt intake and both SBP and DBP
- After adjusting for potential confounding effects of age, gender, locality, BMI and clustering, there was a 2.2mmHg lower SBP and a 1.0mmHg lower DBP for a 50mmol per day lower urinary sodium excretion
- The relationships were significant also when expressed as Na-to-creatinine ratio and Na-to-K ratio.
Effect of the intervention programme on BP
- The intervention group showed a small reduction in both SBP and DBP, more pronounced at six months and statistically significant for DBP at six months using the adjusted model
- However, this effect was not consistent with observed UNa excretion since the Na excretion was lower in the control group at month six. (Intervention: 91.8mmol/L; Control: 89.8mmol/L).
|
Research Design and Implementation Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|
|
Relevance Questions
|
| |
1.
|
Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) |
Yes
|
| |
2.
|
Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? |
Yes
|
| |
3.
|
Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to nutrition or dietetics practice? |
Yes
|
| |
4.
|
Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) |
???
|
| |
|
Validity Questions
|
| 1. |
Was the research question clearly stated? |
Yes
|
| |
1.1.
|
Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? |
Yes
|
| |
1.2.
|
Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? |
Yes
|
| |
1.3.
|
Were the target population and setting specified? |
Yes
|
| 2. |
Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? |
Yes
|
| |
2.1.
|
Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? |
Yes
|
| |
2.2.
|
Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? |
Yes
|
| |
2.3.
|
Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? |
Yes
|
| |
2.4.
|
Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? |
Yes
|
| 3. |
Were study groups comparable? |
Yes
|
| |
3.1.
|
Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) |
Yes
|
| |
3.2.
|
Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? |
Yes
|
| |
3.3.
|
Were concurrent controls used? (Concurrent preferred over historical controls.) |
Yes
|
| |
3.4.
|
If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? |
N/A
|
| |
3.5.
|
If case control or cross-sectional study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable. Criterion may not be applicable in some cross-sectional studies.) |
N/A
|
| |
3.6.
|
If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? |
N/A
|
| 4. |
Was method of handling withdrawals described? |
Yes
|
| |
4.1.
|
Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? |
Yes
|
| |
4.2.
|
Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) |
Yes
|
| |
4.3.
|
Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? |
???
|
| |
4.4.
|
Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? |
Yes
|
| |
4.5.
|
If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? |
N/A
|
| 5. |
Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? |
Yes
|
| |
5.1.
|
In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? |
No
|
| |
5.2.
|
Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) |
No
|
| |
5.3.
|
In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? |
N/A
|
| |
5.4.
|
In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? |
N/A
|
| |
5.5.
|
In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? |
N/A
|
| 6. |
Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? |
Yes
|
| |
6.1.
|
In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? |
Yes
|
| |
6.2.
|
In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? |
N/A
|
| |
6.3.
|
Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? |
Yes
|
| |
6.4.
|
Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? |
Yes
|
| |
6.5.
|
Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? |
N/A
|
| |
6.6.
|
Were extra or unplanned treatments described? |
N/A
|
| |
6.7.
|
Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? |
Yes
|
| |
6.8.
|
In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? |
N/A
|
| 7. |
Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? |
Yes
|
| |
7.1.
|
Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? |
Yes
|
| |
7.2.
|
Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? |
Yes
|
| |
7.3.
|
Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? |
Yes
|
| |
7.4.
|
Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? |
Yes
|
| |
7.5.
|
Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? |
Yes
|
| |
7.6.
|
Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? |
Yes
|
| |
7.7.
|
Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? |
Yes
|
| 8. |
Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? |
Yes
|
| |
8.1.
|
Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? |
Yes
|
| |
8.2.
|
Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? |
Yes
|
| |
8.3.
|
Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? |
Yes
|
| |
8.4.
|
Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? |
Yes
|
| |
8.5.
|
Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? |
Yes
|
| |
8.6.
|
Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? |
Yes
|
| |
8.7.
|
If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? |
Yes
|
| 9. |
Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? |
Yes
|
| |
9.1.
|
Is there a discussion of findings? |
Yes
|
| |
9.2.
|
Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? |
Yes
|
| 10. |
Is bias due to study’s funding or sponsorship unlikely? |
Yes
|
| |
10.1.
|
Were sources of funding and investigators’ affiliations described? |
Yes
|
| |
10.2.
|
Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? |
Yes
|
| |
| |