Search

Abstract Background Authoritative medical and public health agencies in most countries advise to reduce population dietary salt intake to under 5–6 g/day as a strategy for preventing high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. However, there is still dispute about whether salt reduction should be adopted by all populations. In addition, the effect of duration of dietary salt reduction has not been sufficiently investigated. Purpose To understand the effect of dietary salt reduction on blood pressure and the impact of intervention duration. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Randomized controlled trials that allocated participants to low and high salt intake, without confounding from unequal concomitant interventions, were included. We excluded studies done in individuals younger than 18 years, pregnant women, individuals with renal disease or heart failure, and studies with sodium excretion estimated from spot urine. Random effect meta-analysis was used to generate pooled estimates of the effect on 24-hour urinary sodium excretion, systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Multivariate meta-regression was used to quantify the dose response effect of dietary salt on blood pressure change and to understand the impact of the intervention duration. Results 125 studies were included with 162 data points extracted. Ninety-nine data points (61%) had interventions under 4 weeks. Overall, 24-hour urinary sodium excretion changed by −141 mmol (95% CI: −156; −126), systolic blood pressure changed by −4.4 mm Hg (95% CI: −5.2; −3.7) and diastolic blood pressure changed by −2.4 mm Hg (95% CI: −2.9; −1.9). Sodium reduction resulted in a significant decrease of systolic blood pressure in all subg

The International Consortium for Quality Research on Dietary Sodium/Salt (TRUE) is a coalition of intentional and national health and scientific organizations formed because of concerns low-quality research methods were creating controversy regarding dietary salt reduction. One of the main sources of controversy is believed related to errors in estimating sodium intake with urine studies. The recommendations and positions in this manuscript were generated following a series of systematic reviews and analyses by experts in hypertension, nutrition, statistics, and dietary sodium. To assess the population's current 24-hour dietary sodium ingestion, single complete 24-hour urine samples, collected over a series of days from a representative population sample, were recommended. To accurately estimate usual dietary sodium at the individual level, at least 3 non-consecutive complete 24-hour urine collections obtained over a series of days that reflect the usual short-term variations in dietary pattern were recommended. Multiple 24-hour urine collections over several years were recommended to estimate an individual's usual long-term sodium intake. The role of single spot or short duration timed urine collections in assessing population average sodium intake requires more research. Single or multiple spot or short duration timed urine collections are not recommended for assessing an individual's sodium intake especially in relationship to health outcomes. The recommendations should be applied by scientific review committees, granting agencies, editors and journal reviewers, investigators, policymakers, and those developing and creating dietary sodium recommendations. Low-quality research on dietary sodium/salt should not be funded, conducted, or published.

Background: The imperative to improve global health has prompted transnational research partnerships to investigate common health issues on a larger scale. The Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) is an alliance of national research funding agencies. To enhance research funded by GACD members, this study aimed to standardise data collection methods across the 15 GACD hypertension research teams and evaluate the uptake of these standardised measurements. Furthermore we describe concerns and difficulties associated with the data harmonisation process highlighted and debated during annual meetings of the GACD funded investigators. With these concerns and issues in mind, a working group comprising representatives from the 15 studies iteratively identified and proposed a set of common measures for inclusion in each of the teams' data collection plans. One year later all teams were asked which consensus measures had been implemented. Result(s): Important issues were identified during the data harmonisation process relating to data ownership, sharing methodologies and ethical concerns. Measures were assessed across eight domains; demographic; dietary; clinical and anthropometric; medical history; hypertension knowledge; physical activity; behavioural (smoking and alcohol); and biochemical domains. Identifying validated measures relevant across a variety of settings presented some difficulties. The resulting GACD hypertension data dictionary comprises 67 consensus measures. Of the 14 responding teams, only two teams were including more than 50 consensus variables, five teams were including between 25 and 50 consensus variables and four teams were including between 6 and 24 consensus variables, one team did not provide details of the variables collected and two teams did not include any of the consensus variables as the project had already commenced or the measures were not relevant to their study. Conclusion(s): Deriving consensus measures across diverse research pro