Computed from this object's own state — a structural condition is unmet. This is not a fixed disclaimer: the conditions below are each testable, and a build in which they are met renders READY.
In Azilsartan medoxomil plus chlorthalidone against olmesartan medoxomil plus hydrochlorothiazide on change in clinic systolic blood pressure: the two trials that share both arms, what is the effect on mmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure?
In this section: Registration and administrative information (PROSPERO field set)
| Review title | Azilsartan medoxomil plus chlorthalidone against olmesartan medoxomil plus hydrochlorothiazide on change in clinic systolic blood pressure: the two trials that share both arms |
|---|---|
| Review question (PICO) | In Azilsartan medoxomil plus chlorthalidone against olmesartan medoxomil plus hydrochlorothiazide on change in clinic systolic blood pressure: the two trials that share both arms, what is the effect on mmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure? |
| Population | Not shown — no prospectively-frozen v1.0 protocol describes this review, so an independent criterion is withheld rather than invented. State: NO_PROTOCOL. |
| Intervention | Not shown — no prospectively-frozen v1.0 protocol describes this review, so an independent criterion is withheld rather than invented. State: NO_PROTOCOL. |
| Comparator | Not shown — no prospectively-frozen v1.0 protocol describes this review, so an independent criterion is withheld rather than invented. State: NO_PROTOCOL. |
| Background / rationale | Not recorded — this object holds no background field, and an introduction generated without one would be argument that no source in this review supports |
| Eligibility criteria | Population: adults with essential or primary hypertension, read from the coded conditions field. Where that field names a study objective rather than a disease -- NCT01309828 declares `conditions: Safety` -- it is not assessable for this limb and the verdict falls back to the registered title, saying on its face which it rests on. Intervention: azilsartan medoxomil together with chlorthalidone in the same arm; azilsartan monotherapy is a different intervention and azilsartan with amlodipine is another. Comparator: olmesartan medoxomil together with hydrochlorothiazide. Estimand, which governs poolability and not eligibility: change from baseline in clinic systolic blood pressure, detected structurally at every rank. Criteria are derived post hoc and say so. They are narrow because the question is -- one fixed-dose combination against one other -- and narrowness is a defect only when derived backwards from the trials already present, which is why the screen ran over the whole programme rather than a shortlist. |
| Information sources | 0 source layers, listed on the Extraction tab |
| Search strategy | The executed strings, datetimes, filters and hit counts are on the Search tab |
| Study selection process | A second independent screen was NOT run for this review. |
| Number of screeners | One. No second independent screen was run. |
| Data extraction items | Extracted per trial on this object: registry id; per-arm counts and the published effect. Fields not listed here were not extracted. |
| Outcomes and prioritisation | mmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure |
| Risk of bias method | Not recorded — no per-domain RoB-2 assessment exists yet |
| Synthesis methods | Pooled under random-effects with the REML (restricted maximum likelihood) estimator. These methods were NOT prespecified before the search, and are not presented as though they were. |
| Subgroup analyses | Not recorded — this object records no subgroup-analysis field at all, so whether any were prespecified is UNKNOWN -- which is not the same as none having been |
| Meta-bias assessment | Not recorded — no funnel, Egger or Peters value is held on this object, so no meta-bias assessment is claimed |
| Certainty assessment | GRADE, recorded for 1 outcome(s) (GRADE, following the Cochrane Handbook chapter 14. Randomised evidence starts HIGH and is rated down with reasons.). The ratings are on the Certainty tab. |
| Funding | Not recorded — no funding statement is recorded for this review |
| Competing interests | Not recorded — no declaration is recorded |
| Built | 2026-08-18 |
| Schema | 2 |
Query as executed:
intervention="azilsartan"; study_type=INTERVENTIONAL; NO phase filter; page_size=100; count_total=true
Query as executed:
NOT EXECUTED FOR THIS TOPIC
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Included.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: ELIGIBLE_NOT_POOLABLE.
This review's decision: Included.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: ELIGIBLE_NOT_POOLABLE.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
This review's decision: Excluded.
In this section: Extracted values, and where each came from · References · Included studies · Regulatory documents · Methods and guidance · Sources · mmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure · mmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure · Pooled result · Nothing moved, and that is the result · Contributing trials · Endpoint definitions, read from the registry · Named on this review, contributing nothing to its pool
One row per extracted value. Every row carries the value, the verbatim sentence it was read from, a resolvable link to the source, and whether the number was read or derived. Where any of those is absent the row says so rather than omitting the value.
| Trial / outcome | Value as extracted | Verbatim source sentence | Source links | Read or derived |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCT00846365 sbp_change_wk8 | MD -6.1 (95% CI -8.4 to -3.8) | no source sentence recorded — this value cannot be checked against a quoted line here | NCT00846365 | not stated whether read or derived |
| NCT01033071 sbp_change_wk8 | MD -5.3 (95% CI -7.6 to -3.1) | no source sentence recorded — this value cannot be checked against a quoted line here | NCT01033071 | not stated whether read or derived |
| Layer | Source | How it was obtained |
|---|
MD -5.691 (-7.3 to -4.083), 95% interval
mmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure. random-effects, estimator REML (restricted maximum likelihood), k = 2.
τ² 0 · I² 0% · Q 0.2375 on 1 df
Two trials randomise the same fixed-dose combination against the same comparator and register the same continuous endpoint. Nothing had to be harmonised: this review's question was already a question, its estimand was already shared, and its arms already matched. What it lacked was any evidence that these were the only two, and the executed search of 2026-08-19 supplies it -- 57 registrations screened, 53 excluded, and only four carrying both arms of the contrast at all. The other two are long-term open-label safety studies that register no blood-pressure change outcome at any rank, so they are eligible and not poolable rather than absent.
| k | n | estimate | I² | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| before the check | 2 | 2156 | -5.691 (-7.3 to -4.083) | 0% |
| after | 2 | 2156 | -5.691 (-7.3 to -4.083) | 0% |
No trial joined and none left. The pooled estimate is unchanged to every digit.
Before the search, this review's two trials were the two somebody put on a page. They are now the two that the whole 57-record azilsartan programme supports, and the difference between those two states is invisible from the outside -- a correct included set and an unexamined one look identical. The check is what distinguishes them, and it is worth the same when it confirms.
Second instance in one day, by a different route. bococizumab's evidence base was checked and gained a trial; this one was checked and gained none; apixaban's withholding question moved one poolable set UP and another down. A procedure whose answers were always convenient would be indistinguishable from no procedure.
Read this beside the estimate. This pooled outcome is identified as week 8. NCT00846365 registers its primary at week 8; NCT01033071 registers its primary at week 12 -- 'Change From Baseline in Trough, Sitting, Clinic Systolic Blood Pressure', time frame 'Baseline and Week 12'. The measurement is the same measurement in the same words; it is not taken at the same time. GRADE indirectness is rated down for it.
Both trials randomise two experimental arms -- azilsartan/chlorthalidone 20-40mg and 40-80mg -- against one olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide comparator. This object stores one effect per trial. Which dose contrast it represents, OR whether the two were combined, is not established from the registrations. Recorded as unestablished rather than assumed, because a multi-arm trial contributing one row against a shared control is where control-group double counting arises.
The unadjusted interval is MD -5.6912 (-7.2996 to -4.0828) mmHg and excludes no effect. This project's floored Hartung-Knapp interval at k = 2 is -16.1181 to 4.7357 and includes it. The honest reading is narrow: at k = 2 the t critical value is 12.7062 and almost nothing survives, so this is weaker evidence against the result than the same crossing would be at larger k. Disclosed because a reader is entitled to both intervals.
Stated plainly. No result-level RoB 2 assessment has been performed for either contributing result. That is recorded as unassessed, never as absent of bias, and GRADE is rated down one level for it. What would close it: RoB 2 per result on the clinic systolic pressure outcome in both registrations.
| Trial | Analysed treatment / control |
MD (95% CI), or events | Source of this cell |
|---|---|---|---|
| Azilsartan + chlorthalidone vs olmesartan + HCTZ NCT00846365 | not stated / not stated | -6.1 (-8.4 to -3.8) | : registered primary outcome measure, read from the registration |
| Azilsartan + chlorthalidone vs olmesartan + HCTZ NCT01033071 | not stated / not stated | -5.3 (-7.6 to -3.1) | : registered primary outcome measure, read from the registration |
Registered endpoint definitions are recorded per trial on this object.
What each trial COUNTED, in its own registry record's words, before anything here was pooled. A sentence saying what HAPPENED is not a sentence saying what was COUNTED, and only the second one licenses a pool. Read from the registry on 2026-08-18. Follow the registration link to disagree with any row.
| Trial | Rank in its own trial | Registered outcome measure | Description, verbatim | Analysis set / window |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCT00846365 NCT00846365 | PRIMARY | Change From Baseline to Week 8 in Trough, Sitting, Clinic Systolic Blood Pressure. | no description is recorded in this registry field | — |
| NCT01033071 NCT01033071 | PRIMARY | Change From Baseline in Trough, Sitting, Clinic Systolic Blood Pressure. | no description is recorded in this registry field | — |
No reason is recorded.
| Trial | Why it contributes nothing | What the registry holds |
|---|---|---|
| ? — | not stated | — |
| ? — | not stated | — |
In this section: mmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure · Forest plot · Visual abstract · Risk of bias · GOSH · Trial-sequential analysis · Meta-regression
Drawn from the same stored estimates the table above lists. Box area is proportional to inverse-variance weight.
x-axis range
⬇ SVG (vector) 1 KB ⬇ PNG 4500x920 90 KB
All raster formats were generated at build time from the same SVG as the graphic above (SHA-256, first 16 hex characters: d421b28c35af9a7b), at 600 dpi for a 6-inch print width, on a white ground. They are not screenshots of the page and do not change with the theme you are reading in.
Submission formats written to the figures directory, not embedded here because an uncompressed 600 dpi TIFF is tens of megabytes: EPS (vector, journal's first choice for line art) — forest_fit.eps, 3 KB; TIFF (uncompressed, 600 dpi -- journal fallback) — forest_fit.tiff, 12,129 KB.
Changing the range moves the axis window only. The guides stay labelled with the null and the extremes of the plotted intervals, so no plotted value and no printed number differs between these views — and that is checked at build time, not asserted. Ranges not offered because they would crop the data: 0.5 to 2, 0.25 to 4, 0.7 to 1.3.
⬇ SVG (vector) 2 KB ⬇ PNG 4500x2100 341 KB
All raster formats were generated at build time from the same SVG as the graphic above (SHA-256, first 16 hex characters: 6b1c5d242b8be6e0), at 600 dpi for a 6-inch print width, on a white ground. They are not screenshots of the page and do not change with the theme you are reading in.
Submission formats written to the figures directory, not embedded here because an uncompressed 600 dpi TIFF is tens of megabytes: EPS (vector, journal's first choice for line art) — visual-abstract.eps, 4 KB; TIFF (uncompressed, 600 dpi -- journal fallback) — visual-abstract.tiff, 27,685 KB.
Projected from the canonical object, so it carries the same k, the same pooled estimate and the same interval as the paper and cannot drift from them. The interval is drawn to scale against the no-difference line, which it EXCLUDES: -7.3 to -4.083, with no difference at 0.
⬇ SVG (vector) 1 KB
Only the vector format is offered for this figure, by choice: it is line art — discrete marks, glyphs and labels — which SVG reproduces exactly at any size, so a raster would add weight without adding fidelity. The build was able to rasterise; it was asked not to.
Not drawn, because there is nothing to draw it from.
⬇ SVG (vector) 1 KB ⬇ PNG 3500x540 81 KB
All raster formats were generated at build time from the same SVG as the graphic above (SHA-256, first 16 hex characters: 9091822e99aa8781), at 600 dpi for a 6-inch print width, on a white ground. They are not screenshots of the page and do not change with the theme you are reading in.
Submission formats written to the figures directory, not embedded here because an uncompressed 600 dpi TIFF is tens of megabytes: EPS (vector, journal's first choice for line art) — gosh.eps, 2 KB; TIFF (uncompressed, 600 dpi -- journal fallback) — gosh.tiff, 5,537 KB.
Deliberately not drawn. Every subset meta-analysis of 2 trials is 3 points; a cloud that small cannot show the multimodality GOSH exists to reveal, and a reader would take the picture as evidence of its absence.
⬇ SVG (vector) 1 KB ⬇ PNG 3500x650 87 KB
All raster formats were generated at build time from the same SVG as the graphic above (SHA-256, first 16 hex characters: 25ed9800fdf56614), at 600 dpi for a 6-inch print width, on a white ground. They are not screenshots of the page and do not change with the theme you are reading in.
Submission formats written to the figures directory, not embedded here because an uncompressed 600 dpi TIFF is tens of megabytes: EPS (vector, journal's first choice for line art) — tsa.eps, 2 KB; TIFF (uncompressed, 600 dpi -- journal fallback) — tsa.tiff, 6,665 KB.
TSA boundaries depend entirely on a target information size that must be pre-specified. This review's protocol registers none, so any boundary drawn here would be a parameter chosen after seeing the data -- which is the practice TSA exists to protect against.
⬇ SVG (vector) 1 KB ⬇ PNG 3500x540 87 KB
All raster formats were generated at build time from the same SVG as the graphic above (SHA-256, first 16 hex characters: e35ec93bbc9a1c10), at 600 dpi for a 6-inch print width, on a white ground. They are not screenshots of the page and do not change with the theme you are reading in.
Submission formats written to the figures directory, not embedded here because an uncompressed 600 dpi TIFF is tens of megabytes: EPS (vector, journal's first choice for line art) — bubble.eps, 2 KB; TIFF (uncompressed, 600 dpi -- journal fallback) — bubble.tiff, 5,537 KB.
The protocol pre-specifies no moderator, and at k = 2 a meta-regression would be fitted on 2 points. Not drawn rather than drawn with a caveat: a bubble plot invites reading a slope, and there is no slope here that any reader should read.
In this section: Summary of findings · Reproducibility artifact · Other recorded qualifications
| Outcome | k | Pooled effect | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
| mmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure | 2 | MD -5.69 (-7.3 to -4.08) | Low12 |
| Canonical object | — |
|---|---|
| Registered at | — — |
| Schema | 2 |
| Object last updated | 2026-08-18 |
| Source object SHA-256, first 16 hex characters | f889637c73c24e2a |
| Page generated | 2026-08-28 19:53 UTC |
| Generator build | a441e4187, built to STANDARD v1 |
This page CANNOT be rebuilt from what is recorded here: no canonical object is recorded and no registered commit is recorded. Each figure on the Analysis tab downloads as an SVG carrying exactly the values shown.
Statements this review records about the limits of what it establishes, which are not shown elsewhere on this page. They are reproduced from the object verbatim and are not summarised.
| What this does not establish | Not that the trials are free of bias -- no RoB-2 assessment is recorded on this object. Not that the pooled value transfers outside the populations these trials enrolled. Not that the registry's posted analysis is itself correct: it is read, and reading it faithfully is a different claim from endorsing it. |
|---|---|
| Why that is a finding and not a null result | Before the search, this review's two trials were the two somebody put on a page. They are now the two that the whole 57-record azilsartan programme supports, and the difference between those two states is invisible from the outside -- a correct included set and an unexamined one look identical. The check is what distinguishes them, and it is worth the same when it confirms. |
| Why absent | k=2 and a pool was computed -- it is on this page -- but not by a model call this object can quote. There is no R session, no printed output and no package version, so P6 refuses on the quotation and not on the synthesis. The arithmetic is reproducible from the script named on the outcome; a quotable metafor call is what is missing and what would hold P6. |
| A the two trials do not measure at the same time | Read this beside the estimate. This pooled outcome is identified as week 8. NCT00846365 registers its primary at week 8; NCT01033071 registers its primary at week 12 -- 'Change From Baseline in Trough, Sitting, Clinic Systolic Blood Pressure', time frame 'Baseline and Week 12'. The measurement is the same measurement in the same words; it is not taken at the same time. GRADE indirectness is rated down for it. |
| B each trial has two dose arms and this pool carries one effect each | Both trials randomise two experimental arms -- azilsartan/chlorthalidone 20-40mg and 40-80mg -- against one olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide comparator. This object stores one effect per trial. Which dose contrast it represents, OR whether the two were combined, is not established from the registrations. Recorded as unestablished rather than assumed, because a multi-arm trial contributing one row against a shared control is where control-group double counting arises. |
| C the effect does not survive the small sample adjustment | The unadjusted interval is MD -5.6912 (-7.2996 to -4.0828) mmHg and excludes no effect. This project's floored Hartung-Knapp interval at k = 2 is -16.1181 to 4.7357 and includes it. The honest reading is narrow: at k = 2 the t critical value is 12.7062 and almost nothing survives, so this is weaker evidence against the result than the same crossing would be at larger k. Disclosed because a reader is entitled to both intervals. |
| D risk of bias has not been assessed on this topic | Stated plainly. No result-level RoB 2 assessment has been performed for either contributing result. That is recorded as unassessed, never as absent of bias, and GRADE is rated down one level for it. What would close it: RoB 2 per result on the clinic systolic pressure outcome in both registrations. |
| Why the query is the drug and not the contrast | Searching for the contrast -- azilsartan and chlorthalidone and olmesartan -- would have surfaced only trials that already name all three, which is the set this review already holds. A query built from the included set cannot discover anything the included set does not already contain. The whole drug programme is surfaced and the contrast is applied at screening, where it is auditable. |
| Why 53 of 57 are excluded and that is not a criticism of the query | The query is the whole azilsartan programme and the review is one fixed-dose combination against one other. All 53 exclusions FAIL on comparator -- only four registrations in the entire programme carry an olmesartan-plus-hydrochlorothiazide arm, and the other fifty-three randomise azilsartan against valsartan, olmesartan alone, ramipril, candesartan, amlodipine, or placebo. All are perfectly good contrasts and none is this one. The query was deliberately built from the drug and not from the contrast: a query built from the contrast could only have returned trials already naming all three agents, which is the set this review already held, and a search that can only confirm the included set is not a search. |
| And the included set did not change | k stays 2. The third direction again, on a second topic and by a different route: bococizumab's evidence base was checked and gained one trial; this one was checked and gained none. Before either search, neither review could tell a correct included set from an unexamined one. |
| And they are narrow because the question is | A review of one fixed-dose combination against one other has narrow criteria by construction, and narrowness is only a defect when it is derived backwards from the trials already present. Every limb below is auditable against a registry field, and the screen was run over the whole 57-record drug programme rather than over a shortlist. |
| Why it does not settle it alone | A condition that names a study objective is not a statement about the population. NCT01309828 declares `conditions: Safety` while its title reads '...in Hypertensive Subjects With Moderate Renal Impairment', and it carries both arms of this review's contrast. The field is neither absent nor negative; it is uninformative, and excluding on it asserts something the record nowhere says. Where every declared condition names an objective the coded field is not assessable for this limb and the verdict falls back to the title -- and says on its face which it rests on. The fallback still excludes: NCT03652792 declares a bioequivalence objective and its title says 'in Chinese Healthy Volunteers'. |
| And the included set did not change | k stays 2. That is a result of the search and not an assumption it started from. Before 2026-08-19 this review had no executed search, so its two trials were the two somebody put on a page; they are now the two the whole 57-record programme supports. |
| Risk of bias downgrade follows the object s own refusal | The risk-of-bias limb on this object is REFUSED and states its consequence: 'GRADE rates down one level for risk of bias.' That instruction is followed rather than re-derived. The object's refusal is the authority on what its own absence costs. |
In this section: Paper · Title · Abstract · Introduction · Methods — search · Methods — eligibility criteria · Methods — how many studies at each stage · Methods — outcomes sought at every registered rank · Methods — synthesis · Results · Certainty of the evidence · Limitations · Data availability · Note on registration · References · Figures · Trial characteristics · Submission conformance · Not reported in this record
Each statement below cites the record it came from; those sources are listed at the end of every section. Where the record holds nothing, the section says so by name rather than being left out, so a procedure that was not carried out can be told from one that simply was never mentioned.
Azilsartan medoxomil plus chlorthalidone against olmesartan medoxomil plus hydrochlorothiazide on change in clinic systolic blood pressure: the two trials that share both arms1
titleQuestion. In Azilsartan medoxomil plus chlorthalidone against olmesartan medoxomil plus hydrochlorothiazide on change in clinic systolic blood pressure: the two trials that share both arms, what is the effect on mmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure?1
Methods. ClinicalTrials.gov API v2 was searched; no search was executed against PubMed (ncbi e-utilities esearch); estimates were pooled under a random-effects model with the REML (restricted maximum likelihood) estimator; and certainty was rated with GRADE, following the Cochrane Handbook chapter 14. Randomised evidence starts HIGH and is rated down with reasons.2
Results. MmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure: mean difference -5.69 (-7.3 to -4.08) across 2 trials; 1 of these pooled outcome(s) carries a stated qualification -- a referral or a recorded finding -- given in full in Results and not reproduced here; no statistical heterogeneity was detected (I-squared 0%), though heterogeneity cannot be reliably assessed with two trials; and certainty of the evidence was low.3
questionsearch.databases, search.databases, screening.eligibility, results.by_outcome, grade.by_outcomegrade.by_outcome, results.by_outcomeBackground. This review asks: In Azilsartan medoxomil plus chlorthalidone against olmesartan medoxomil plus hydrochlorothiazide on change in clinic systolic blood pressure: the two trials that share both arms, what is the effect on mmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure? It pools 2 randomised trials, against olmesartan medoxomil plus hydrochlorothiazide. The outcome pooled is mmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure. Every count and denominator behind those estimates is read as follows. Registry-sourced. Every trial identity and endpoint on this object was read from its registration on the date recorded per trial.1
manuscript.introductionSearches were executed in ClinicalTrials.gov API v2 on 2026-08-19 with the query, verbatim: intervention="azilsartan"; study_type=interventional; no phase filter; page_size=100; count_total=true. It returned 57 record(s).1
No search was executed against PubMed (ncbi e-utilities esearch) for this topic.2
Primary trials. No bibliographic search for primary trials was run. The 2 included trials were identified by reading named registrations on 2026-08-18. Every point estimate and interval is the value ClinicalTrials.gov posts in the outcome's own analyses block, read on 2026-08-18, with the statistical method the registry names. Nothing is derived from arm means.3
search.databases[0]search.databases[1]bookkeeping_2026_08_21.the_search_its_date_and_its_databasesPopulation: adults with essential or primary hypertension, read from the coded conditions field. Where that field names a study objective rather than a disease -- NCT01309828 declares `conditions: Safety` -- it is not assessable for this limb and the verdict falls back to the registered title, saying on its face which it rests on. Intervention: azilsartan medoxomil together with chlorthalidone in the same arm; azilsartan monotherapy is a different intervention and azilsartan with amlodipine is another. Comparator: olmesartan medoxomil together with hydrochlorothiazide. Estimand, which governs poolability and not eligibility: change from baseline in clinic systolic blood pressure, detected structurally at every rank. Criteria are derived post hoc and say so. They are narrow because the question is -- one fixed-dose combination against one other -- and narrowness is a defect only when derived backwards from the trials already present, which is why the screen ran over the whole programme rather than a shortlist.1
Each criterion above is recorded with the source it was derived from in `screening.eligibility_provenance`; none is asserted here without one.2
screening.eligibilityscreening.eligibility_provenanceThe PRISMA 2020 flow counts are held for this review and reconcile with the executed searches above; they are set out in the flow figure and its accompanying counts.1
The unscreened remainder is 0.2
| Stage | Records |
|---|---|
| Records surfaced by the executed searches | 57 |
| Records where the topic drug's role in the trial could be located | 57 |
| Records where the topic drug is the randomised intervention | 45 |
| Records where the topic drug is the comparator instead | 4 |
| Records where the topic drug is background therapy in both arms | 8 |
| Records where the role could not be decided either way | 0 |
| k screened | 57 |
| k excluded | 53 |
| k eligible | 4 |
| k eligible not poolable | 2 |
| Trials included in this review | 2 |
| k pooled | 2 |
| Surfaced records not yet screened | 0 |
prisma_flowk_cascade.k_unscreened_remainderk_cascadeBefore deciding which outcomes could be combined, every trial was read at every registered rank -- primary, secondary and other -- asking: does each trial that shares both arms register a blood-pressure change outcome at any rank -- primary, secondary or other -- before concluding which trials can be combined? Asked at every registered rank and detected structurally -- a blood-pressure term plus a change term -- rather than by the two incumbents' registered phrase, which would have found the two that already agree and nothing else. Yes for the two included trials and no for the other two. Four registrations in the whole azilsartan programme carry both arms of this contrast. Two register a blood-pressure change outcome and are pooled; two register none at any rank and are eligible, not poolable. Both of those are long-term open-label safety studies -- n=837 and n=153 -- and their absence from the pool is an estimand fact, not a population one.1
withholding_question.question, withholding_question.why_before_decidingFor mmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure, a random-effects model was fitted with the REML (restricted maximum likelihood) estimator.1
Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 , following . 0 result-level assessments were made.2
Certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE, following the Cochrane Handbook chapter 14. Randomised evidence starts HIGH and is rated down with reasons., following . 1 pooled outcome(s) were rated.3
results.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.model, results.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.estimator_usedrisk_of_bias.tool, risk_of_bias.by_outcomegrade.approach, grade.by_outcomeThe pooled mean difference for mmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure was -5.69 (-7.3 to -4.08) across 2 trials, against olmesartan medoxomil plus hydrochlorothiazide.1
Noted on this pool. Read this beside the estimate. This pooled outcome is identified as week 8. NCT00846365 registers its primary at week 8; NCT01033071 registers its primary at week 12 -- 'Change From Baseline in Trough, Sitting, Clinic Systolic Blood Pressure', time frame 'Baseline and Week 12'. The measurement is the same measurement in the same words; it is not taken at the same time. GRADE indirectness is rated down for it. Both trials randomise two experimental arms -- azilsartan/chlorthalidone 20-40mg and 40-80mg -- against one olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide comparator. This object stores one effect per trial. Which dose contrast it represents, or whether the two were combined, is not established from the registrations. Recorded as unestablished rather than assumed, because a multi-arm trial contributing one row against a shared control is where control-group double counting arises. The unadjusted interval is MD -5.6912 (-7.2996 to -4.0828) mmHg and excludes no effect. This project's floored Hartung-Knapp interval at k = 2 is -16.1181 to 4.7357 and includes it. The honest reading is narrow: at k = 2 the t critical value is 12.7062 and almost nothing survives, so this is weaker evidence against the result than the same crossing would be at larger k. Disclosed because a reader is entitled to both intervals. Stated plainly. No result-level RoB 2 assessment has been performed for either contributing result. That is recorded as unassessed, never as absent of bias, and GRADE is rated down one level for it. What would close it: RoB 2 per result on the clinic systolic pressure outcome in both registrations.2
The trials' results were closely consistent with one another: I-squared, the share of the variation between them that is more than chance alone would produce, was 0%; the estimated variance of the true effects between trials (tau-squared) was 0, the heterogeneity test statistic Q was 0.237, on degrees of freedom 1.3
The grounds for pooling are recorded as: Two trials randomise the same fixed-dose combination against the same comparator and register the same continuous endpoint. Nothing had to be harmonised: this review's question was already a question, its estimand was already shared, and its arms already matched. What it lacked was any evidence that these were the only two, and the executed search of 2026-08-19 supplies it -- 57 registrations screened, 53 excluded, and only four carrying both arms of the contrast at all. The other two are long-term open-label safety studies that register no blood-pressure change outcome at any rank, so they are eligible and not poolable rather than absent. Where a later pool on this page rests on the same grounds, they are not restated.4
What this does not establish: Not that the trials are free of bias -- no RoB-2 assessment is recorded on this object. Not that the pooled value transfers outside the populations these trials enrolled. Not that the registry's posted analysis is itself correct: it is read, and reading it faithfully is a different claim from endorsing it.5
outcomes[id=sbp_change_wk8].name, results.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.pooled, outcomes[id=sbp_change_wk8].comparatorresults.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.POOL_FINDINGS_2026_08_21results.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.heterogeneity.i2, results.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.heterogeneity.tau2, results.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.heterogeneity.q, results.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.heterogeneity.dfresults.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.poolable_reasonresults.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.what_this_does_not_establishCertainty was rated with GRADE, following the Cochrane Handbook chapter 14. Randomised evidence starts HIGH and is rated down with reasons..1
LOW certainty. The two trials agree closely and both are quadruple-masked, so the downgrades are not for inconsistency or for anything shown about how the trials were run. They are for a risk-of-bias assessment this review has not performed, and for the two trials measuring the same quantity at different times -- week 8 on one registration and week 12 on the other, under an outcome this object identifies as week 8.2
| Outcome | Certainty | k | Started at | Rating steps |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| mmHg change from baseline in trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure | LOW | 2 | risk of bias -- the risk-of-bias limb is REFUSED on this object, and its refusal names its own consequence: 'GRADE rates down one level for risk of bias.' No result-level RoB 2 assessment has been performed for either contributing result, and the refusal records that as unassessed, never as absent of bias. The downgrade is for what we have not done, not for anything shown about these trials -- both register quadruple masking including the outcomes assessor, which is the strongest masking either could record. (move: HIGH to MODERATE, down 1 level(s)); inconsistency -- tau-squared is exactly zero, Q 0.2375 on 1 df, p = 0.6260, I-squared 0.00%. The two effects -- -6.1 (-8.4 to -3.8) and -5.3 (-7.6 to -3.1) mmHg -- agree in size and in direction. Downgrading here would manufacture a caution the numbers do not support. (move: no downgrade); indirectness -- the pooled outcome is called week 8 and one of its two trials registers its primary at week 12. NCT00846365's registered time frame is 'Baseline and Week 8'; NCT01033071's is 'Baseline and Week 12'. The measurement is identical in words -- trough, sitting, clinic systolic blood pressure -- but an antihypertensive effect at eight weeks and at twelve weeks are not the same quantity, and the outcome's own identifier asserts week 8 for both. Recorded and not separately rated: both trials randomise two experimental dose arms against one comparator and this object stores one effect per trial; which dose contrast that is, or whether the two were combined, is not established from the registrations. (move: MODERATE to LOW, down 1 level(s)); imprecision -- k = 2. This project's floored Hartung-Knapp interval is -16.1181 to 4.7357 on t = 12.7062 with 1 degree of freedom and it includes no effect, where the unadjusted interval -7.2996 to -4.0828 excludes it. A downgrade is warranted on that alone. It is not applied, and the reason is stated rather than hidden: at k = 2 the t critical value is 12.7062 and almost nothing survives the adjustment, so the crossing is weak evidence of imprecision in either direction. Note also what is not used: metafor's RAW unfloored interval here is -10.7725 to -0.6100 and does exclude no effect. That is not this project's interval and it is not cited as one. (move: LOW to very LOW -- warranted and not applied, see reason); publication bias -- k = 2. A funnel plot and its asymmetry tests have essentially no power below about ten trials (Handbook 13.3.5.4), so this is not assessable rather than 'undetected'. (move: Not assessable -- no rating applied) |
grade.approachgrade.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.summarygrade.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8What this review does not give a clinician: any measure of harm. A relative effect cannot be turned into the benefit or the risk facing one patient without them, so this review can support a judgement about what these trials found and not a judgement about what to do.1
results.by_outcomeEvery trial in this review is keyed to a registration identifier, verified by live fetch of the raw ClinicalTrials.gov v2 record and comparison of the returned nctId against the id stored on this object on 2026-08-19.1
| Registration | Verified | Link |
|---|---|---|
| NCT00846365 | True | https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00846365 |
| NCT01033071 | True | https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01033071 |
registration_identity.methodregistration_identity.trialsProtocol status. Prespecified: False. A protocol specified before data collection is a historical fact about the past and cannot be created retrospectively.1
Eligibility criteria were derived post hoc on 2026-08-19, when this review's search was executed for the first time.2
Authority: Mecir R107, provided they are declared as such.3
No PROSPERO registration or protocol record is held on this object. That is not the same as knowing this review was not registered, and neither claim is made. It is recorded here as an absence so that a reader does not have to infer it from silence.4
protocolprotocol.what_was_actually_doneprotocol.authority_permitting_itbookkeeping_2026_08_21.whether_this_review_was_prospectively_registered| Trial | Registration | Registry | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Azilsartan + chlorthalidone vs olmesartan + HCTZ | NCT00846365 | ClinicalTrials.gov | 2026-08-18 |
| Azilsartan + chlorthalidone vs olmesartan + HCTZ | NCT01033071 | ClinicalTrials.gov | 2026-08-18 |
| Cited for | Reference |
|---|---|
| certainty of the evidence | Schunemann HJ, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, et al. Chapter 14: Completing 'Summary of findings' tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.5. Cochrane; 2024. |
| the reporting guideline this manuscript is written against | Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 |
manuscript.referencesmanuscript.referencesresults.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.per_trial, results.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.pooledresults.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.per_trial, results.by_outcome.sbp_change_wk8.pooled| Registration | Trial | Participants | Randomised | Primary outcome measured over | Design |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCT00846365 | registered condition: Essential Hypertension | not extracted | Baseline and Week 8. | not recorded on this object | |
| NCT01033071 | registered condition: Essential Hypertension | not extracted | Baseline and Week 12. | not recorded on this object |
inputs.trialsThis review was built to page standard 1.14.0-2026-08-19 (PAGE-STANDARD.md), by ssot/build_to_standard.py on 2026-08-19. A page built below the current standard is knowably below it rather than silently stale.1
10 machine-checked properties were verified for this page before it was published; the checks and their names are recorded with the build rather than here.2
build_stamp.page_standard_versionbuild_stamp.heldThe items below were not written because the record does not hold what they would be composed from. They are named here so that an absence is not mistaken for an omission.
| Article area | Item not reported | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract | The Background sentence of the abstract | Background is argument -- why this question matters -- and no arrangement of the quantities this object holds yields it. It is emitted only from an authored field and there is no composition path for it here |
| Abstract | The Conclusions sentence of the abstract | A conclusion is argument -- what a reader should now believe -- and it is emitted only from an authored field. Composing one from the estimate would be this renderer telling the reader what to conclude, which no field supports |
| Methods — synthesis | The claim that records were screened in duplicate | And this topic owes one rather than merely lacking one: |
| Methods — synthesis | The claim that the review methods were prespecified before data collection | This refusal is permanent and is not a gap to be filled. A protocol specified before data collection is a historical fact about the past and cannot be created retrospectively. Eligibility criteria were derived post hoc on 2026-08-19, when this review's search was executed for the first time. Mecir R107, provided they are declared as such. |
Built 2026-08-19 by ssot/build_to_standard.py against PAGE-STANDARD.md. 10 held, 4 refusing. A refusal is a complete outcome; nothing is generated to fill a slot.
| property | state | reason |
|---|---|---|
| P1_executed_search | HELD | 2 database queries recorded verbatim with dates and counts; PRISMA arithmetic reconciles and the 0-trial unscreened remainder is stated as a number rather than omitted. |
| P2_k_cascade | HELD | k at every stage: surfaced 57, located 57, experimental 45, comparator 4, included 2, unscreened remainder 0. |
| P3_inclusion_criteria | HELD | Criteria provenance block present with predefined=False on its face (state 'DERIVED_POST_HOC'). |
| P4_preconditions | HELD | All 8 recorded with verdict and cited authority: 1 FAIL, 3 NOT-ASSESSABLE. criteria_predefined is FAIL -- post hoc criteria, which R107 permits and C5/C7 does not satisfy. |
| P5_extraction_table | HELD | 8 cells: 6 READ with source path and verbatim text, 2 DERIVED with the method named. |
| P6_analysis_output | REFUSING | No quotable model output exists: k=2 and the pool on this page was computed outside R, so there is a synthesis and no quotation. The absence is recorded as a finding with its cause and what would close it. |
| P7_published_comparison | REFUSING | No denominator yet. Blocked on external registration-id resolution; citation-string matching explicitly refused rather than substituted. |
| P8_registration_identity | HELD | 2 of 2 trial(s) verified live against the registry. |
| P18_restatement_is_reproducible | REFUSING | No restatement block on this cascade, so there is nothing to re-derive. This is NOT_ASSESSABLE dressed as a refusal rather than a pass: a topic that has never been restated has not demonstrated that a restatement of it would be checkable. |
| P19_promotion_reaches_derived_blocks | HELD | inputs.trials, k_cascade.k_included_in_object and prisma_flow.included all say 2; no first-person field in published_comparison declares a k the pooled outcome(s) do not. |
| P20_cascade_reconciles | HELD | k2_role_located=57 == k3+k4+k5, and k0_surfaced=57 == k3+k4+k5+kNA. Both checked, and every failing limb would be reported rather than the first. |
| P21_ambiguous_question_split | REFUSING | This object records no split provenance. That is CORRECT for a topic whose question was never ambiguous and it is NOT a pass: this builder cannot tell the two apart, so the property is refused with the reason rather than held on an absence. What would settle it: a `split_provenance` block, or an explicit statement that the question admits one reading. |
| P22_sharing_recorded | HELD | 2 shared trial(s), each recorded with the topics holding it and why: NCT00846365 in olmesartan-htn; NCT01033071 in olmesartan-htn. The object also states that summing per-topic k double-counts. |
| P23_recall_measured | HELD | All 2 recorded quer(ies) state their recall against this review's own included set: 2/2 and NOT MEASURED. |
| stage | k |
|---|---|
| k0_surfaced | 57 |
| k2_role_located | 57 |
| k3_experimental | 45 |
| k4_comparator | 4 |
| k5_background | 8 |
| kNA_not_assessable | 0 |
| k_screened | 57 |
| k_excluded | 53 |
| k_eligible | 4 |
| k_eligible_not_poolable | 2 |
| k_included_in_object | 2 |
| k_pooled | 2 |
| k_unscreened_remainder | 0 |
| reproduced_by | scripts/screen_azilsartan_2026_08_19.py. |
| why_53_of_57_ARE_EXCLUDED_AND_THAT_IS_NOT_A_CRITICISM_OF_THE_QUERY | The query is the whole azilsartan programme and the review is ONE fixed-dose combination against ONE other. ALL 53 EXCLUSIONS FAIL ON COMPARATOR -- only four registrations in the entire programme carry an olmesartan-plus-hydrochlorothiazide arm, and the other fifty-three randomise azilsartan against valsartan, olmesartan alone, ramipril, candesartan, amlodipine, or placebo. All are perfectly good contrasts and none is this one. THE QUERY WAS DELIBERATELY BUILT FROM THE DRUG AND NOT FROM THE CONTRAST: a query built from the contrast could only have returned trials already naming all three agents, which is the set this review already held, and a search that can only confirm the included set is not a search. |
| and_the_included_set_DID_NOT_CHANGE | k stays 2. THE THIRD DIRECTION AGAIN, on a second topic and by a different route: bococizumab's evidence base was checked and gained one trial; this one was checked and gained none. Before either search, neither review could tell a correct included set from an unexamined one. |
| keyed_on | registration id |
predefined: False | post_hoc: True — derived —
—
| limb | value | derived from |
|---|---|---|
| — | — | — |
| — | — | — |
| — | — | — |
| — | — | — |
does each trial that shares BOTH arms register a blood-pressure CHANGE outcome at ANY rank -- primary, secondary or other -- before concluding which trials can be combined?
YES FOR THE TWO INCLUDED TRIALS AND NO FOR THE OTHER TWO. Four registrations in the whole azilsartan programme carry both arms of this contrast. Two register a blood-pressure change outcome and are pooled; two register none at any rank and are ELIGIBLE, NOT POOLABLE. Both of those are long-term open-label SAFETY studies -- n=837 and n=153 -- and their absence from the pool is an estimand fact, not a population one.
Asked at EVERY registered rank and detected STRUCTURALLY -- a blood-pressure term plus a change term -- rather than by the two incumbents' registered phrase, which would have found the two that already agree and nothing else.
| registration | trial | two-component | three-component |
|---|---|---|---|
NCT00846365 | Efficacy and Safety of Azilsartan Medoxomil Plus Chlorthalid | 16 rank(s) read | [PRIMARY] Change From Baseline to Week 8 in Trough, Sitting, Clinic Systolic Blood Pressure.; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline to Week 4 in Trough, Sitting, Clinic Systolic Blood Pressure.; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Trough, Sitting, Clinic Diastolic Blood Pressure; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Trough Mean Systolic Blood Pressure Measured by Ambulatory Blood P; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Trough Mean Diastolic Blood Pressure Measured by Ambulatory Blood ; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in 24-hour Mean Systolic Blood Pressure as Measured by Ambulatory Blo; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in 24-hour Mean Diastolic Blood Pressure Measured by Ambulatory Blood; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Daytime Mean (6am to 10pm) Systolic Blood Pressure Measured by Amb; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Daytime Mean (6am to 10pm) Diastolic Blood Pressure Measured by Am; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Nighttime Mean (12am to 6am) Systolic Blood Pressure Measured by A; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Nighttime Mean (12am to 6am) Diastolic Blood Pressure Measured by ; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in 12-hr Mean Systolic Blood Pressure Measured by Ambulatory Blood Pr; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in 12-hr Mean Diastolic Blood Pressure Measured by Ambulatory Blood P |
NCT00996281 | Safety and Tolerability of Azilsartan Medoxomil Plus Chlorth | 2 rank(s) read | NO blood-pressure change outcome at any rank |
NCT01033071 | Efficacy and Safety of Azilsartan Medoxomil and Chlorthalido | 18 rank(s) read | [PRIMARY] Change From Baseline in Trough, Sitting, Clinic Systolic Blood Pressure.; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Trough, Sitting, Clinic Systolic Blood Pressure.; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Trough, Sitting, Clinic Diastolic Blood Pressure.; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Mean Trough Systolic Blood Pressure by Ambulatory Blood Pressure M; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Mean Trough Diastolic Blood Pressure by Ambulatory Blood Pressure ; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in 24-hour Mean Systolic Blood Pressure by Ambulatory Blood Pressure ; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in 24-hour Mean Diastolic Blood Pressure by Ambulatory Blood Pressure; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Mean Daytime (6 AM to 10 PM) Systolic Blood Pressure by Ambulatory; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Mean Daytime (6 AM to 10 PM) Diastolic Blood Pressure by Ambulator; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Mean Nighttime (12 AM to 6 AM) Systolic Blood Pressure by Ambulato; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in Mean Nighttime (12 AM to 6 AM) Diastolic Blood Pressure by Ambulat; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in the Mean Systolic Blood Pressure at 0 to 12 Hours After Dosing by ; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in the Mean Diastolic Blood Pressure at 0 to 12 Hours After Dosing by; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in the Mean Systolic Blood Pressure During Each Hour of the 24-hour A; [SECONDARY] Change From Baseline in the Mean Diastolic Blood Pressure During Each Hour of the 24-hour |
NCT01309828 | Long-Term Safety of Azilsartan Medoxomil and Chlorthalidone | 4 rank(s) read | NO blood-pressure change outcome at any rank |
—
k after screening: —. —
| failing limb | n | registrations |
|---|
—
—
| registration | rank | matching outcome |
|---|
| registration | verdict | limb | reason |
|---|
k=2 AND A POOL WAS COMPUTED -- it is on this page -- but NOT by a model call this object can quote. There is no R session, no printed output and no package version, so P6 refuses on the QUOTATION and not on the synthesis. The arithmetic is reproducible from the script named on the outcome; a quotable metafor call is what is missing and what would hold P6.
What stands instead: —
Provenance: ——
Heterogeneity: Undefined: no between-study variance was estimated because no model was run.
What would change it: An estimand shared by two or more included trials. Where k is already above 1 and nothing pooled, the obstacle is the ESTIMAND rather than the evidence base, and this field must say which.
Denominator: —. Not yet established. Establishing it requires resolving published syntheses' included-sets to REGISTRATION IDs. A second lane has validated that pipeline (stated-k table identification plus two-hop citation->PMID->registration) and is running it now.
Explicitly not done: CITATION-STRING MATCHING. It would produce a comparison-shaped answer tonight and it is not identity: two syntheses citing the same trial under different labels would read as different, and the same label on different trials as the same. That is the substitution class this project audits for.
Blocked on: lane 2 registration-id resolution
Authority: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 6.5, 2024, verified 2026-08-19. Publishable: True.
| precondition | verdict | reason | authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| population_stated | PASS | present: question carries 256 characters | MECIR C62 'Ensuring meta-analyses are meaningful' (Mandatory, READ 2026-08-19): 'Undertake (or display) a meta-analysis only if participants, interventions, comparisons and outcomes are judged to be s |
| arm_role_resolved | NOT-ASSESSABLE | cannot assess: inputs.trials has 2 trial(s) with no readable arms ['NCT00846365', 'NCT01033071'] and 0 with a blank arm role []. Absent role data is not a wrong role. | MECIR C62 (Mandatory), 'interventions' limb -- this is a PRECONDITION FOR ASSESSING C62, not an enforcement of it: you cannot judge whether interventions are 'sufficiently similar' without knowing whi |
| comparators_identified | PASS | every outcome names a comparator type ['active']; none declares 'mixed'. Within-outcome consistency is visible only through the declared type, and cross-outcome differences are not judged. | MECIR C62 (Mandatory), 'comparisons' limb -- a synthesis pools one contrast. NOT cited to C7: C7 governs PREDEFINITION, and this check reads recorded comparator fields and tests them for consistency. |
| estimand_named | PASS | outcomes.estimand: all 1 outcome(s) name a quantity | MECIR C8 'Clarifying role of outcomes' (Mandatory, READ 2026-08-19); MECIR C62 (Mandatory), 'outcomes' limb |
| criteria_stated | PASS | present: screening.eligibility carries 1028 characters | MECIR R29 'Eligibility criteria for types of participants', R30 '...types of interventions', R31 'Role of outcomes' -- ALL Mandatory REPORTING standards (READ 2026-08-19). Their verb is STATE. A block |
| criteria_predefined | FAIL | screening.eligibility_provenance.predefined is false: the criteria were DERIVED post hoc from this object's own question and recorded exclusions. That is auditable (R29/R30/R31) and is not pre-specification (C5/C7). This | MECIR C5 'Predefining unambiguous criteria for participants' AND C7 '...for interventions and comparators', BOTH Mandatory (READ 2026-08-19): 'Predefined, unambiguous eligibility criteria are a fundam |
| eligibility_met | NOT-ASSESSABLE | cannot assess: criteria are stated, but sources is an empty dict -- no full text was available this pass, and inclusion logic is conditional prose | MECIR C5/C7 (Mandatory) with C6 'Predefining a strategy for studies with a subset of eligible participants' (Highly desirable, READ 2026-08-19) -- eligibility is assessed against the full report |
| contributes_a_randomised_contrast | NOT-ASSESSABLE | cannot assess: 2 of 2 trial(s) carry no readable arm roles ['NCT00846365', 'NCT01033071'] | Handbook 6.5 s23.3.4 'How to include multiple groups from one study' (READ 2026-08-19) and s23.3.6 'Factorial trials'; MECIR C7 'Predefining unambiguous criteria for interventions and comparators' (Ma |
This page is stamped to the standard version above. If the standard rises, this page is below it and knowably so. No page is grandfathered; arni-hfref is presently unstamped and is therefore unknown-version, not compliant.
Every number on this page is projected from a single canonical object, and each measured cell names the source analysis it was read from. That is what is machine-checked. It does not establish that the underlying sources are right, only that this page faithfully reports them.