Association between duration of oral contraceptive use and risk of hypertension: A meta‐analysis, methodological and statistical issues

Association between duration of oral contraceptive use and risk of hypertension: A... To the EditorI read the study conducted by Liu et al that was published in the Journal of Clinical Hypertension. The authors tried to evaluate the effect of oral contraceptive duration on hypertension risk, as well as assess the possible dose‐response relationship between oral contraceptive duration and hypertension risk. I think some issues on methodological pattern needs to be considered.First, the study selection and characteristics has been reported by Figure 1. Of total 6227 retrieved reported articles (6222: left box and 5: right box), 5922 articles were excluded. Therefore, 305 articles is expected to be considered for abstract screening; however, this was 3266. Moreover, considering eligibility box, even if we accept 25 full text articles remains for named section, after excluding 16 articles (third exclusion box on right side), the number of eligible articles for final meta‐analysis reaches to 9. While 17 full articles were selected.Second, Table 1 shows detailed characteristics of the included studies, but unfortunately there are egregious errors. For example, for the first study in the list, which was published by Chiu et al the following comments needs to be addressed:The total past oral contraceptive users sample size of the referenced study was (25 780; 48‐58 years = 10 647; 58‐66 years = 9213; and ≥67 years = 5920), which is different from the reported sample size by Liu et alAuthors abbreviate NA (not available) for “adjustment for covariate” part, while in the referenced study, authors clearly mentioned “odds ratios were adjusted for demographic and lifestyle factors that were significantly associated with treatment for high blood pressure in univariate analysis. Namely, income, country of origin, BMI, smoking, alcohol, exercise, family history of high blood pressure, menopausal hormone therapy use, number of children, whether they breastfed, and age of menopause, with additional categories for missing values (see page 5, methods).The reported adjusted OR (odds ratio) in the main article for each age category was (48‐58 years, 1.1; 58‐66 years, 0.9; and ≥ 67 years, 0.9), which is different from the one in Liu et alThird, the Homogenization methodology of reported OR, hazard ratio (HR) or relative risks (RR) of different studies was not described. The same errors were also detected in other reported studies.Considering these points; which have direct effect on the final conclusion, are important.CONFLICT OF INTERESTThe author reports no conflicts of interest.REFERENCESLiu H, Yao J, Wang W, Zhang D. Association between duration of oral contraceptive use and risk of hypertension: a meta‐analysis. J Clin Hypertension. 2017;19:613‐613.Chiu CL, Lind JM. Past oral contraceptive use and self‐reported high blood pressure in postmenopausal women. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:54. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Clinical Hypertension Wiley

Association between duration of oral contraceptive use and risk of hypertension: A meta‐analysis, methodological and statistical issues

Free
1 page

Loading next page...
1 Page
 
/lp/wiley/association-between-duration-of-oral-contraceptive-use-and-risk-of-8sOfjS2neM
Publisher
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
ISSN
1524-6175
eISSN
1751-7176
D.O.I.
10.1111/jch.13208
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

To the EditorI read the study conducted by Liu et al that was published in the Journal of Clinical Hypertension. The authors tried to evaluate the effect of oral contraceptive duration on hypertension risk, as well as assess the possible dose‐response relationship between oral contraceptive duration and hypertension risk. I think some issues on methodological pattern needs to be considered.First, the study selection and characteristics has been reported by Figure 1. Of total 6227 retrieved reported articles (6222: left box and 5: right box), 5922 articles were excluded. Therefore, 305 articles is expected to be considered for abstract screening; however, this was 3266. Moreover, considering eligibility box, even if we accept 25 full text articles remains for named section, after excluding 16 articles (third exclusion box on right side), the number of eligible articles for final meta‐analysis reaches to 9. While 17 full articles were selected.Second, Table 1 shows detailed characteristics of the included studies, but unfortunately there are egregious errors. For example, for the first study in the list, which was published by Chiu et al the following comments needs to be addressed:The total past oral contraceptive users sample size of the referenced study was (25 780; 48‐58 years = 10 647; 58‐66 years = 9213; and ≥67 years = 5920), which is different from the reported sample size by Liu et alAuthors abbreviate NA (not available) for “adjustment for covariate” part, while in the referenced study, authors clearly mentioned “odds ratios were adjusted for demographic and lifestyle factors that were significantly associated with treatment for high blood pressure in univariate analysis. Namely, income, country of origin, BMI, smoking, alcohol, exercise, family history of high blood pressure, menopausal hormone therapy use, number of children, whether they breastfed, and age of menopause, with additional categories for missing values (see page 5, methods).The reported adjusted OR (odds ratio) in the main article for each age category was (48‐58 years, 1.1; 58‐66 years, 0.9; and ≥ 67 years, 0.9), which is different from the one in Liu et alThird, the Homogenization methodology of reported OR, hazard ratio (HR) or relative risks (RR) of different studies was not described. The same errors were also detected in other reported studies.Considering these points; which have direct effect on the final conclusion, are important.CONFLICT OF INTERESTThe author reports no conflicts of interest.REFERENCESLiu H, Yao J, Wang W, Zhang D. Association between duration of oral contraceptive use and risk of hypertension: a meta‐analysis. J Clin Hypertension. 2017;19:613‐613.Chiu CL, Lind JM. Past oral contraceptive use and self‐reported high blood pressure in postmenopausal women. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:54.

Journal

Journal of Clinical HypertensionWiley

Published: Jan 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$49/month

Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$588

$360/year

billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial