ASSIGNMENT

Research Methodology and Application

Class of 2020
Raja Yasmin Khalilah Fahmizal- 1219314
rkhalilah@student.unimelb.edu.au
Homework-Task 1

1. Does article support the use of RESPeRATE for hypertensive patients?

No. The aspects of published trials (study size, device cost, bias, and possible conflicts of interest
from the manufactures of the Respirate) assessed were vague and concerning. Validation of
extensive use of Respirate required high quality independent trials.

2. What level of evidence is presented in this article?

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (The highest quality).

3. Is this device effective in lowering blood pressure?

According to the studies assessed, there were some evidence that indicated short term-use of
the device decreased both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. However, the duration of most
studies were too short to conclude what the long-term effects would be. Moreover, involvement
of Resperate manufactures was found in five of the included studies. The meta-analysis studies
on blood pressure benefits of the device that were not influenced by Resperate manufactures
found no general effect of the device on blood pressure.

4. Would you support your patient using this device instead of pharmacological treatment to
lower blood pressure?

I would not support my patient to use this device because even if some studies may gave
evidence that the device lowered blood pressure in short-term, there are aspects of the trials in
the studies that gave concern. The first aspect is the duration, the longest duration of
intervention was only 9 weeks and only one article that analysed the blood pressure effect at 6
months. Secondly, there might be a conflict of interest in the results since five of included studies
were supported by the manufactures. Thirdly, there were not enough studies that discussed
mean respiratory rate that should be reached (10 breaths/min or less), whereas Resperate
manufactures once responded to a study that stated that the use of the device gave no general
effect by claiming that the possible explanation for it was the intervention group might not
achieve the breathing rate required. Fourthly, the quality of methodology in the included studies
have high risk of bias, there were only four studies with proper controls. And lastly, the way
blood pressure was taken in studies were not examined very well.