The relationship between external and internal validity of randomized controlled trials: A sample of hypertension trials from China.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the relationship between the external validity and the internal validity of hypertension RCTs conducted in China.

METHODS

Comprehensive 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).

RESULTS

226 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).

CONCLUSION

Several 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.