Skip to main content
. 2016 Jul 8;2016(7):CD009077. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009077.pub3

Andrade 2012.

Methods
  1. Design: parallel (2 arms)

  2. Country: Brazil

  3. Multicenter: unclear

  4. International: no

  5. Follow‐up period: unknown

  6. Treatment duration: 4 weeks

Participants Randomised: 39
  1. Rosuvastatin: 23

  2. Placebo: 16


Trial authors did not report information on: age, gender, inclusion or exclusion criteria, or New York Heart Association stage.
Interventions
  1. Rosuvastatin: 20 mg/day. Manufacturer: not given.

  2. Placebo (physical and chemical properties): not reported.

  3. Treatment duration: four weeks.


Cointervention: not given.
Outcomes
  1. Serum markers of inflammation (C Reactive Protein)

  2. Quality of life


Trial authors did not classify their outcomes as primary or secondary.
Notes
  1. All information was gathered from an abstract.

  2. Date of trial: not reported.

  3. Trial register number: not reported.

  4. Sample size estimation a priori: not reported.

  5. Sponsor: not reported.

  6. Role of sponsor: does not apply.


We sent an e‐mail to the trial author on 23 January 2015.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Quote "... we randomized..." (Page 90).
Insufficient information to permit judgment of 'low risk' or 'high risk'
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk'
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Quote "...double‐blind, placebo‐controlled..." (page 90)
Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk'
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Quote "...double‐blind, placebo‐controlled..." (page 90)
Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk'
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk'
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk The study report failed to include results for a key outcome that would be expected to have been reported for such a study
Other bias High risk Bias in the presentation of the data.