PENUGASAN JURNAL

Dietary Sodium Consumption Predicts Future Blood Pressure and Incident

Hypertension in the Japanese Normotensive General Population

Disusun Oleh :

Muhammad Yasir (13711062)

Pembimbing :

dr. Devintha A. P.

FAKULTAS KEDOKTERAN

UNIVERSITAS ISLAM INDONESIA

SMF ILMU KESEHATAN MASYARAKAT

PUSKESMAS SAWANGAN 2

MAGELANG

2017
 PENUGASAN JURNAL

Dietary Sodium Consumption Predicts Future Blood Pressure and Incident

Hypertension in the Japanese Normotensive General Population

Disusun Untuk Memenuhi Syarat Kepaniteraan

Di Stase Ilmu Kesehatan Masyarakat Puskesmas Sawangan 2 Magelang

oleh :

Muhammad Yasir

Telah dipresentasikan tanggal:

30 Oktober 2017

Dokter Pembimbing DM Puskesmas Sawangan 2

dr. Devintha A. P. Muhammad Yasir

ii
 Rumusan PICO

Question part Question Term Synonyms

Patient Usia produktif Adults
Intervention Diet Nutrition, diet
Comparison -
Outcome Hipertensi Hypertension, high blood
pressure

Keyword : hypertension, diet

1
 CRITICAL APPRAISAL
COHORT STUDY
(CAPS CHECKLIST)
(A) Are the results of the study valid?
1 Did the study address a clearly focused issue? Yes Cant tell No
HINT : A question can be focused In terms of
a) The population studied : Japanese normotensive general population
b) The risk factors studied : Dietary sodium
c) The outcomes considered : hypertension
d) Is it clear whether the study tried to detect a beneficial or harmful effect? : yes

(Judul hal 1)

2 Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? Yes Cant tell \ No

HINT : Look for selection bias which might compromise
the generalisability of the findings:
a) Was the cohort representative of a defined population? Yes
b) Was there something special about the cohort? Yes
c) Was everybody included who should have been included? No

(Paragraf 2 hal 2)

Is it worth continuing?
3 Was the exposure accurately measured to Yes Cant tell No
minimise bias?
HINT: Look for measurement or classification bias:
a) Did they use subjective or objective measurements? Yes
b) Do the measurements truly reflect what you want them to (have they been validated)? Yes
c) Were all the subjects classified into exposure groups using the same procedure? Yes

2
 (Paragraf 2 hal 2)

4 Was the outcome accurately measured to Yes Cant tell No

minimise bias?
HINT: Look for measurement or classification bias:
a) Did they use subjective or objective measurements? Cantell, karena secara metode sama
namun pengukuran dilakukan seara individu jadi dapat mengakibatkan bias.
b) Do the measures truly reflect what you want them to (have they been validated)? Yes
c) Has a reliable system been established for detecting all the cases (for measuring disease
occurrence)? Yes
d) Were the measurement methods similar in the different groups? Yes
e) Were the subjects and/or the outcome assessor blinded to exposure (does this matter)?
Cant tell

(Paragraf 2 hal 2)

5a Have the authors identified all important Yes Cant tell No

confounding factors?
List the ones you think might be important, that the author missed.

3
 (Tabel 1 hal 3)

5b Have they taken account of the confounding Yes Cant tell No

factors in the design and/or analysis?
HINT: Look for restriction in design, and techniques e.g. modelling, stratified-, regression-, or
sensitivity analysis to correct, control or adjust for confounding factors
Ya, dianalisis di Tabel 1
6 (a) Was the follow up of subjects complete Yes Cant tell No
enough?
(b) Was the follow up of subjects long Yes Cant tell No
enough?
HINT: Consider
a) The good or bad effects should have had long enough to reveal themselves
b) The persons that are lost to follow-up may have different outcomes than those available
for assessment
c) In an open or dynamic cohort, was there anything special about the outcome of the people
leaving, or the exposure of the people entering the cohort?

(Paragraf 1 hal 3)
B
What are the results?
7 What are the results of this study?

4
 HINT: Consider
a) What are the bottom line results? Yes
b) Have they reported the rate or the proportion between the exposed/unexposed, the
ratio/the rate difference? Yes
c) How strong is the association between exposure and outcome (RR)? Cant tell
d) What is the absolute risk reduction (ARR)? Cant tell

(paragraf 2 hal 3)

Tidak ada data RR ARR namun ada data HR disetiap variabel yang diteliti (Tabel 3)
8 How precise are the results?
HINT: Look for the range of the confidence intervals, if given.

(Paragraf 1 hal 4)

9 Do you believe the results? Yes Cant tell No

HINT: Consider
a) Big effect is hard to ignore!
b) Can it be due to bias, chance or confounding?
c) Are the design and methods of this study sufficiently flawed to make the results
unreliable?
d) Bradford Hills criteria (e.g. time sequence, dose-response gradient, biological plausibility,
consistency

(Paragraf 4 hal 5)

Ya, karena penelitian ini lebih mendalam dan sesuai dengan teori yang ada
(C)
Will the results help locally?
10 Can the results be applied to the local Yes Cant tell No
population?
HINT: Consider whether
a) A cohort study was the appropriate method to answer this question
b) The subjects covered in this study could be sufficiently different from your population to
cause concern
c) Your local setting is likely to differ much from that of the study
d) You can quantify the local benefits and harms

5
 Karena Jepang dan Indonesia sama-sama berada di benua Asia sehingga populasi kedua negara
tersebut tidak jauh berbeda.
11 Do the results of this study fit with other Yes Cant tell No
available evidence?

(Paragraf 4 hal 5)

12 What are the implications of this study for practice?

HINT: Consider
a) One observational study rarely provides sufficiently robust evidence to recommend
changes to clinical practice or within health policy decision making
b) For certain questions observational studies provide the only evidence
c) Recommendations from observational studies are always stronger when supported by
other evidence
Mencegah hipertensi dengan mengurangi diet garam