TABLE 9.
Risk of bias assessment of RCTs examining dietary sodium and its effect on blood pressure1
| Association2 | Intervention randomly allocated | Concealed allocation process | Participants/staff blinded to intervention | Adequate follow-up | Indicator assessors blinded to intervention | Prespecified indicator | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | SBP | DBP | ||||||
| Parallel RCT | ||||||||
| Nakano et al. (51)3 | + | + | L | U | NA | L | H | L |
| He FJ et al. (37)2 | + (A); 0 (C) | 0 | L | L | NA | L | U | L |
| Takada et al. (59) | + | 0 | L | U | NA | L | L | L |
| Pinjuh Markota et al. (48) | 0 | 0 | U | L | NA | L | U | U |
| Meuleman et al. (49) | 0 | 0 | L | L | NA | L | H | L |
| Fabricio et al. (33) | 0 | 0 | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| Crossover RCT | ||||||||
| Gijsbers et al. (36)3 | + | + | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| Muth et al. (50) | + | + | U | U | NA | U | U | U |
| Saran et al. (56) | + | + | U | L | NA | H | L | L |
| Juraschek et al. (44) | + | + | U | U | NA | U | L | L |
| Suckling et al. (58)3 | + | + | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| Brian et al. (27)2,3 | + (F); 0 (M) | 0 | U | U | NA | L | U | U |
| Cashman et al. (28) | + | 0 | U | U | NA | L | U | L |
| Babcock et al. (24) | 0 | 0 | U | U | NA | U | L | L |
| Baqar et al. (25) | 0 | 0 | U | U | L | L | L | U |
| Total high rankings | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | ||
1
n = 14. A, adults; BP, blood pressure; C, children; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; H, high; L, low; NA, not applicable; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SBP, systolic blood pressure; U, unclear.
2
If the authors stratified results to examine specific subpopulations (e.g., by age group or gender), criteria selections are presented for each with the specific subpopulation noted in parentheses.
3
Results presented are for overall 24-h SBP/DBP (mm Hg), because the authors also evaluated clinic BP and other measures of 24-h BP measurements (e.g., morning 24 h).