Single Drug Therapy for Hypertension in Men, Article Critique Example

Summary

This research entailed a randomized double blind study utilizing 15 clinics and recruiting 1292 men with diastolic blood pressure range 95 – 109 mm Hg. The systolic blood pressure of these subjects was not stated in the study. However, treatment of 12.5 – 50 mg of hydrochlorothiazide was administered daily. Atenolol 25-30 mg daily; captopril 25 – 100 mg daily  was also prescribed and given too as well as clonidine 0.2-0.6 once per day; Diltiazem 120-360 per day or prazozin 4 – 20mg. Researchers began this treatment after conducting a placebo washout period ( Matherson, Reda & Cushman, 1993).

Subjects were treated for one year. After evaluating their results researchers concluded that. As it relates to men the variables age and race influence response to hypertensive treatment when single drug interventions are utilized. Besides, drug costs; side effects’ impact on quality of life ought to be considered when physicians select drug therapies for hypertensive men (Matherson et.al. 1993).

Critique of methodology and other research features

Double blind studies signify a great advancement in medical science research practices. According to Dr. Steven Bratmasn (2004) most professionals do not realize the impact of double blind sties in scientific research since it deviates from the normal randomized control trials being conducted daily. As such, only matured scientific minds could appreciate results derived from these studies. Consequently their true significance is lost by the way side. Some claim that as in this case interpreting as well as accepting conclusions researchers arrive at seems difficult to digest. In reality double blinded studies relate vividly what other scientific research methodologies may refuse to disclose. Importantly, the professional is forced to question and conduct personal evaluations of conclusions (Bratmasn. 2004).

For example, in this research study whereby six anti-hypertensive medications were administered over a period of one year to 12 92 men attending 15 clinics all that was reported as conclusions pertained to age and race influence on subjects’ response to hypertensive treatment when single drug interventions are utilized. Besides, drug costs; side effects’ impact on quality of life ought to be considered when physicians select drug therapies for hypertensive men (Matherson et.al. 1993).

These conclusions seem rather vague to the inquiring mind, which was expecting to find out/ learn how each of the six drugs interact with each other during the study. These drugs were compared during the study to determine most effectiveness in the treatment of hypertension among men. Dr. Bratmasn (2004) confirmed that double blind studies’ conclusions inform scientists and other professional to look beyond personal experience, which may be invalid, but explore profoundly the experiences in our daily lives  (Bratmasn, 2004).

Personal reflections of the study/article

Clearly, I was disappointed in the conclusions and not so much results because they were statistically calculated. The qualitative nature of data analysis provided far more than qualitative explanations for findings, adding a real scientific element to the outcome. However, researchers in merely highlighting age, race, cost and quality of life leave the science with many unanswered questions. Could these conclusions be applied as translated evidence in health care practice is the next phase of understanding the evidence based practitioner must grasp

Identification of evidence levels

There are  nine level of evidence and this article could be considered primary  unfiltered evidence  level V111.

References

Bratmasn, S. (2004). Double-Blind Studies: A Major Scientific Advance of the 20th Century. Retrieved on March 25^th, 2014 from http://www.mendosa.com/bratman.htm

Matherson, J. Reda, D., & Cushman, C (1993).Single Drug Therapy for Hypertension in men: A comparison of six anti-hypertensive agents and placebo. The New England Journal of Medicine