BAB 3

METODE PENELITIAN
3.1 Protokol dan Registrasi
Rangkuman menyeluruh dalam bentuk literature review mengenaiFaktorfaktor yang
mempengaruhiterjadinyahipertensipadaremaja. Protokol dalam studi ini menggunakan
The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools sebagai asesmen kualitas dari studi
yang akan dirangkum. Evaluasi dari literature review akan menggunakan PRISMA
checklist untuk menentukan penyelesaian studi yang telah ditemukan dan disesuaikan
dengan tujuan dari literature review.
3.1.1 Database Pencarian
Literature review merupakan rangkuman/telah menyeluruh beberapa studi
penelitian yang ditentukan berdasarkan tema yang dipilih. Pencarian literatur
dilakukan pada bulan September-November 2020. Data yang digunakan dalam
penelitian ini adalah data sekunder yakni data yang didapatkan bukan dari
penelitian langsung melainkan data dari hasil penelitian yang dilakukan oleh
peneliti-peneliti terdahulu. Sumber data sekunder yang didapat berupa artikel asli
(Original article) menggunakan jurnal nasionalmaupuninternasional dengan tema
yang sudah ditetapkan. Penelusuran literatur dalam literature review ini
menggunakan tiga database diantaranya adalah Pubmed, Science Direct dan
Google Scholar.
3.2.1 Kata Kunci
Kata kunci dalam literature review ini disesuaikan dengan Medical Subject
Heading (MeSH) dengan format berikut ini :
Adolescents Teenager Nutritional Obesity Sleep qualitysmoking

Keyword dalam literatur ini adalah :

((((((Adolescents) OR Teenager) AND nutritional)OR Obesity) OR Sleep
quality)OR smoking) AND hypertension))
3.2 Kriteria Inklusi dan Eksklusi
Strategi yang digunakan dalam penelusuran artikel menggunakan PEOS
1. P = population/patients/problem yaitu populasi, pasien, atau masalah yang akan
dianalisis sesuai dengan tema yang ditetapkan
2. E = exposure yaitu apa yang dianalisis dalam suatu topik atau tema yang ditetapkan
3. O = outcome yaitu target yang ingin dicapai dalam menyusun literature review sesuai
dengan topik yang dipilih
4. S = study desaign yaitu desain penelitian yang digunakan dalam artikel yang akan
direview
Kriteria Inklusi Eksklusi
P (Population) Adolescents,Teenager Children, Old, Adult
E (Exposure) Poor nutrional intake Goodnutrional intake
Obesity Not obesity (normal,,
underweight)
Poor sleep quality Good sleep quality
Smoking Not smoking
O (Outcome) Risk factors that influence Not Risk factors that
hypertension in adolescents influence hypertension in
adolescents
S (Study design) Cross sectional study,kohort Quasy experimen, pra
study experiment

3.3 Seleksi Studi dan Penilaian Kualitas

3.3.1 Hasil Pencarian dan Seleksi Studi
Berdasarkan hasil pencarian literatur di tiga database yang menggunakan kata
kunci yang disesuaikan dengan MeSH Term, peneliti mendapatkan 188 artikel
yang sesuai dengan kata kunci. Dari hasil pencarian yang sudah didapatkan
kemudian diperiksa duplikat, ditemukan 18 artikel yang sama sehingga
dikeluarkan dan tersisa 170 artikel, selanjutnya peneliti melakukan skrining yang
yang memuat found urldan not found didapatkan 74
artikeldankemudiandikeluarkansehinggatersisa 114 artikelfulltext. Dari 114
artikel peneiliti juga memeriksa yang tidak lengkap/tidak sesuai dengan PEOS
yang sudah ditetapkan serta yang tidak sesuai dengan kriteria inklusi, hasilnya
 ditemukan 101 artikel yang tidak sesuai dan 13 artikel yang termasuk included
study dan akan dilakukan analisis. Hasil seleksi literatur dapat digambarkan pada
PRISMA flowchart (terlampir).
3.4.1 Penilaian kualitas
Penilaian kualitas dilakukan dengan analisis kualitas metodologi dalam setiap
studi dengan menggunakan checklist critical appraisal (terlampir) oleh The
Joanna Briggs Institute.Checklist critical appraisal ini merupakan penilaian
dengan beberapa jenis pertanyaan yang diberi checklist “YA” atau “TIDAK”,
atau “TIDAK JELAS” atau “TIDAK TERSEDIA”, dimana setiap jawaban
“YA” diberi skor 1 kemudian dihitung dan dijumlahkan. Skor yang memenuhi
kriteria critical appraisal 50% dari cut-off-point yang telah disepakati, maka
studi dimasukkan ke dalam kriteria inklusi dan dapat dilakukan review.
Hasil skrining akhir didapatkan 13 artikel yang mencapai atau lebih dari skor
50% yang sesuai dengan kriteria critical appraisal dan siap dilakukan analisis
data.

Lampiran 1
Records identified through Additional records identified
database searching through other sources
Pubmed : 100 (n = 0)
Science Direct : 53
Google Scholar: 35
(n = 188)

Records after duplicates removed

(n = 170)

Record Screened Record Excluded

(n= 114) Found url : 45Not
found : 29

Full-text
articlesassessed for Full-text article
eligibility excluded, with reasons (n
(n = 13) = 101)

Studies included in
quantitative synthesis
(literature review)
(n = 13 )
JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR ANALYTICAL CROSS SECTIONAL
STUDIES

Reviewer :Belinda alivia Date :29 -11-2020

Author:de Almeida, M.M.S., Guimarães, R.A, Jardim, Pcbv, Sousa, A. L. L., de Souza, M. M.
Year:2017
RecordNumber:Volume 12, Issue 12, Pages e0188782,ISSN 1932-6203.

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable

1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the

sample clearly defined? √ □ □ □
2. Were the study subjects and the setting
described in detail?
√ □ □ □
3. Was the exposure measured in a valid and
reliable way? √ □ □ □
4. Were objective, standard criteria used for
measurement of the condition?
√ □ □ □
5. Were confounding factors identified? √ □ □ □
6. Were strategies to deal with confounding
factors stated? √ □ □ □
7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid
and reliable way?
√ □ □ □
8. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? √ □ □ □
Overallappraisal: Include √Exclude□ Seek further info□
Comments (Including reason for exclusion) :dari 8 pertanyaanterdapat 8 jawaban YA : 100%
JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR ANALYTICAL CROSS SECTIONAL
STUDIES

Reviewer :Belinda alivia Date: 8-11-2020

Author:Kurnianto, A, KurniadiSunjaya, D.RuluwedrataRinawan, F.Hilmanto,

Year:2020
RecordNumber :Volume 2020, Pages 4262034,ISSN 2090-0384.

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable

1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the

sample clearly defined? √ □ □ □
2. Were the study subjects and the setting
described in detail?
√ □ □ □
3. Was the exposure measured in a valid
and reliable way? √ □ □ □
4. Were objective, standard criteria used
for measurement of the condition?
√ □ □ □
5. Were confounding factors identified? √ □ □ □
6. Were strategies to deal with
confounding factors stated? √ □ □ □
7. Were the outcomes measured in a
valid and reliable way?
√ □ □ □
8. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used?
√ □ □ □

Overallappraisal: Include √Exclude□ Seek further info□

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)dari 8 pertanyaanterdapat 8 jawabanYA : 100%
JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR ANALYTICAL CROSS SECTIONAL
STUDIES

ReviewerBelinda alivia Date :8-11-2020

Author: Noronha, J.A, Medeiros, C.C, Cardoso Ada, S.Gonzaga, N.C, Ramos, A. T.
Ramos, A. L.
Year : 2013
RecordNumber:Volume 31, Issue 3,Pages 331-7,ISSN 0103-0582.

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable

1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the

sample clearly defined? √ □ □ □
2. Were the study subjects and the setting
described in detail?
√ □ □ □
3. Was the exposure measured in a valid
and reliable way? √ □ □ □
4. Were objective, standard criteria used
for measurement of the condition?
√ □ □ □
5. Were confounding factors identified? √ □ □ □
6. Were strategies to deal with
confounding factors stated? √ □ □ □
7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid
and reliable way?
√ □ □ □
8. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used?
√ □ □ □
Overallappraisal: Include √Exclude□ Seek further info□
Comments (Including reason for exclusion)dari 8 pertanyaanterdapat 8 jawabanYA : 100%
JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR ANALYTICAL CROSS SECTIONAL
STUDIES

ReviewerBelinda alivia Date :7-11-2020

Author:Silveira Vieira R. Dal Bosco,S.M. Grave,M.T.Adami, F. S.
Year: 2015
RecordNumber :Volume 31, Issue 4, Pages 1839-44,ISSN 0212-1611.

Not
Yes No Unclear applicable

1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the

sample clearly defined? √ □ □ □
2. Were the study subjects and the
setting described in detail?
√ □ □ □
3. Was the exposure measured in a valid
and reliable way? √ □ □ □
4. Were objective, standard criteria used
for measurement of the condition?
√ □ □ □
5. Were confounding factors identified? √ □ □ □
6. Were strategies to deal with
confounding factors stated? √ □ □ □
7. Were the outcomes measured in a
valid and reliable way?
√ □ □ □
8. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used?
√ □ □ □
Overallappraisal: Include √Exclude□ Seek further info□
Comments (Including reason for exclusion)dari 8 pertanyaanterdapat 8 jawabanYA : 100%
JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR ANALYTICAL CROSS SECTIONAL
STUDIES

Reviewer :Belinda alivia Date : 8-11-2020

Author :Cossio-Bolaños,M.Cossio-Bolaños,W.Menacho, A.A. Gómez Campos,R.
Silva,Y.M.Abella,C.P.de Arruda, M.
Year:2014
RecordNumber :Volume 112. Issue 4, Pages 302-7,ISSN 0325-0075.

Not
Yes No Unclear applicable

1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the

sample clearly defined? √ □ □ □
2. Were the study subjects and the setting
described in detail?
√ □ □ □
3. Was the exposure measured in a valid
and reliable way? √ □ □ □
4. Were objective, standard criteria used
for measurement of the condition?
√ □ □ □
5. Were confounding factors identified? √ □ □ □
6. Were strategies to deal with
confounding factors stated? □ √ □ □
7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid
and reliable way?
√ □ □ □
8. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used?
√ □ □ □

Overallappraisal: Include √Exclude□ Seek further info□

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)dari 8 pertanyaan 7 terdapatjawabanYA : 90%
JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR ANALYTICAL CROSS SECTIONAL
STUDIES

Reviewer :Belinda alivia Date : 27-10-2020

Author :Aryanpur,M., Yousefifard,M.Oraii,A.Heydari,G.Kazempour-
Dizaji,M.Sharifi,H.Hosseini,M.Jamaati,H.
Year :2019
RecordNumber:Volume 19, Issue 1,Pages161, ISSN 1471-2431.

Not
Yes No Unclear applicable

1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the

sample clearly defined? √ □ □ □
2. Were the study subjects and the setting
described in detail?
√ □ □ □
3. Was the exposure measured in a valid
and reliable way? √ □ □ □
4. Were objective, standard criteria used
for measurement of the condition?
√ □ □ □
5. Were confounding factors identified? √ □ □ □
6. Were strategies to deal with
confounding factors stated? □ √ □ □
7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid
and reliable way?
√ □ □ □
8. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used?
√ □ □ □
Overallappraisal :Include √Exclude□ Seek further info□
Comments (Including reason for exclusion)dari 8 pertanyaan 7 terdapatjawabanYA : 90%
JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR ANALYTICAL CROSS SECTIONAL
STUDIES

Reviewer:Belinda alivia Date : 30-11-2020

Author:Wu,J. Li,T. Song,X. Sun,W. Zhang,Y. Liu,Y. Yu,Y. Li.L. Qi,C. Liu,B.
Year:2018
RecordNumber :Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages e020126, ISSN 2044-6055.

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable

1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the

sample clearly defined? √ □ □ □
2. Were the study subjects and the setting
described in detail?
√ □ □ □
3. Was the exposure measured in a valid
and reliable way? √ □ □ □
4. Were objective, standard criteria used
for measurement of the condition?
√ □ □ □
5. Were confounding factors identified? √ □ □ □
6. Were strategies to deal with
confounding factors stated? √ □ □ □
7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid
and reliable way?
√ □ □ □
√ □ □
8. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? □
Overallappraisal: Include√Exclude□ Seek further info□

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)dari 8 pertanyaanterdapat 8 jawabanYA : 100%

JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR ANALYTICAL CROSS SECTIONAL
STUDIES

Reviewer:Belinda alivia Date : 27-10-2020

Author:Kim,G.H. Shin,S.W. Lee,J. Hwang,J.H. Park,S.W. Moon,J.S. Kim,H.J. Ahn, H. S.
Year:2017
RecordNumber :Volume 16, Issue 1 Pages 31, ISSN 1475-2891

Not
Yes No Unclear applicable

1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the

sample clearly defined? √ □ □ □
2. Were the study subjects and the setting
described in detail?
√ □ □ □
3. Was the exposure measured in a valid
and reliable way? √ □ □ □
4. Were objective, standard criteria used for
measurement of the condition?
√ □ □ □
5. Were confounding factors identified? □ √ □ □
6. Were strategies to deal with confounding
factors stated? √ □ □ □
7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid
and reliable way?
√ □ □ □
8. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? √ □ □ □
Overallappraisal: Include √Exclude□ Seek further info□
Comments (Including reason for exclusion)dari 8 pertanyaan 7 terdapatjawabanYA : 90%
JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR ANALYTICAL CROSS SECTIONAL
STUDIES

Reviewer:Belinda alivia Date : 30-11-2020

Author:Lima.M,C. Romaldini,C.C. Romaldini C.C
Year: 2015
RecordNumber:Volume 133, Pages 125-30, ISSN : 1516-3180.

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable

1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the

sample clearly defined? √ □ □ □
2. Were the study subjects and the setting
described in detail?
√ □ □ □
3. Was the exposure measured in a valid
and reliable way? √ □ □ □
4. Were objective, standard criteria used
for measurement of the condition?
√ □ □ □
5. Were confounding factors identified? √ □ □ □
6. Were strategies to deal with
confounding factors stated? √ □ □ □
7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid
and reliable way?
√ □ □ □
8. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? √ □ □ □
Overallappraisal: Include √Exclude□ Seek further info□
Comments (Including reason for exclusion)dari 8 pertanyaanterdapat 8 jawabanYA : 100%
JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR ANALYTICAL CROSS SECTIONAL
STUDIES

Reviewer :Belinda alivia Date : 30-11-2020

Author:Hannon,T.S., Tu,W., Watson,S.E., Jalou,H., Chakravorty,S., Arslanian,S.A.
Year : 2013
RecordNumber:Volume 164, Issue 2, ,Pages 313-7, ISSN 0022-3476.

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable

1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the

sample clearly defined? √ □ □ □
2. Were the study subjects and the setting
described in detail?
√ □ □ □
3. Was the exposure measured in a valid
and reliable way? √ □ □ □
4. Were objective, standard criteria used
for measurement of the condition?
√ □ □ □
5. Were confounding factors identified? √ □ □ □
6. Were strategies to deal with
confounding factors stated? □ √ □ □
7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid
and reliable way?
√ □ □ □
8. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used?
√ □ □ □
Overallappraisal: Include √Exclude□ Seek further info□
Comments (Including reason for exclusion)dari 8 pertanyaan 7 terdapatjawabanYA : 90%
JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR ANALYTICAL CROSS SECTIONAL
STUDIES

Reviewer:Belinda alivia Date : 30-11-2020

Author:Mohammed,H. Ghosh,S. Vuvor,F. Mensah-Armah,S. Steiner-Asiedu,M.
Year: 2016
RecordNumber:Volume 50, Pages 16-21, ISSN : 0016-9560.
Yes No Unclear Not
Applicable

1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the

sample clearly defined? √ □ □ □
2. Were the study subjects and the setting
described in detail?
√ □ □ □
3. Was the exposure measured in a valid
and reliable way? √ □ □ □
4. Were objective, standard criteria used
for measurement of the condition?
□ □ √ □
5. Were confounding factors identified? √ □ □ □
6. Were strategies to deal with
confounding factors stated? □ □ √ □
7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid
and reliable way?
□ □ √ □
8. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? √ □ □ □
Overallappraisal: Include √Exclude□ Seek further info□
Comments (Including reason for exclusion)dari 8 pertanyaan5terdapatjawabanYA : 70%
JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR ANALYTICAL CROSS SECTIONAL
STUDIES

Reviewer :Belinda alivia Date: 4-12-2020

Author:Ratner,R.G., Hernández,P.J., Martel, J. A., Atalah, E. S.
Year:2012
RecordNumber:Volume 140, Issue 12, Pages 1571-9, ISSN 0034-9887.

Yes No Unclear Not

Applicable

1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the

sample clearly defined? √ □ □ □
2. Were the study subjects and the setting
described in detail?
√ □ □ □
3. Was the exposure measured in a valid
and reliable way? √ □ □ □
4. Were objective, standard criteria used
for measurement of the condition?
□ □ √ □
5. Were confounding factors identified? √ □ □ □
6. Were strategies to deal with
confounding factors stated? √ □ □ □
7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid
and reliable way?
√ □ □ □
8. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? √ □ □ □
Overallappraisal: Include √Exclude□ Seek further info□
Comments (Including reason for exclusion)dari 8 pertanyaan 7 terdapatjawabanYA : 90%
JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR COHORT STUDIES

Reviewer:Belinda alivia Date: 4-12-2020

Author:Helen Andriani, Hsien-Wen Kuo, ReynaldiIkhsanKosasih, SeptiaraPutri
Year :2020
RecordNumber:Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages e038021, ISSN 2044-6055.

YES NO Unclear Not

applicable
1. Were the two groups similar and
recruited from the same population? √ □ □ □
2. Were the expsosures measured
similiary to assign people to both
exposed and unexposed groups ?
√ □ □ □
3. Was the exposure measured in a valid
and reliable way? √ □ □ □
4. Wereconfounding factors indentified?
√ □ □ □

5. Were strategies to deal with

counfounding factors stated? √ □ □ □
6. where the groups/participants free of
the outcome at the start of study (or at
the moment of exposure) ?
√ □ □ □
7. Were the outcomes measured in a
valid and reliable way? □ □ √ □
8. Was follow up time reported and
sufficient to be long enough for
√ □ □ □
outcomes to occur?

√ □ □ □
9. Was follow up complete,and if not, were
the respons to loss to follow up described
and explored ?

√ □ □ □
10. Were strategies to address incomplete
follow up utilized?
 √ □ □ □
11. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used?

Overallappraisal: Include √Exclude□ Seek further info□

Comments (Including reason for exclusion) dari 11 pertanyaan 10 terdapatjawabanYA : 90%