Kajiyama 1996.
| Methods | 4‐week run‐in stabilisation period 12‐week before‐and‐after study |
|
| Participants | 21 men and women with type IIa or IIb hyperlipidaemia aged 20‐70 years old TC ≥ 220 mg/dL (5.7 mmol/L) and TG < 400 mg/dL (4.52 mmol/L) Exclusion criteria: severe organ disease, history of stroke, MI history, child bearing potential, statin hypersensitivity Cerivastatin 0.2 mg/d baseline TC: 7.029 mmol/L (272 mg/dL) Cerivastatin 0.2 mg/d baseline LDL‐C: 5.0168 mmol/L (194 mg/dL) Cerivastatin 0.2 mg/d baseline HDL‐C: 1.3395 mmol/L (52 mg/dL) Cerivastatin 0.2 mg/d baseline TG: 1.47 mmol/L (130 mg/dL) |
|
| Interventions | Cerivastatin 0.2 mg/d evening dosing | |
| Outcomes | Percentage change from baseline at 4‐12 weeks of serum TC, LDL‐C, HDL‐C, and TG | |
| Source of funding | Unknown | |
| Notes | SDs were imputed by the method of Furukawa 2006 | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | High risk | Controlled before‐and‐after design |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Controlled before‐and‐after design |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Lipid parameter measurements unlikely influenced by lack of blinding |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) LDL‐C | Low risk | Lipid parameters were measured in a remote laboratory |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) WDAE | High risk | No comparison possible |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Total cholesterol | Low risk | [(21 ‐ 20)/21]*100 = 4.8% participants were not included in the efficacy analysis |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) LDL cholesterol | Low risk | [(21 ‐ 20)/21]*100 = 4.8% participants were not included in the efficacy analysis |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) HDL cholesterol | Low risk | [(21 ‐ 20)/21]*100 = 4.8% participants were not included in the efficacy analysis |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Triglycerides | Low risk | [(21 ‐ 20)/21]*100 = 4.8% participants were not included in the efficacy analysis |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | LDL‐C outcome was reported |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | Source of funding not reported |