Key result
Plethysmographic forearm blood flow correlates with flowmeter readings but overestimates exercise flow by ~1.7-fold.
Observational (n=8)
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Forearm blood flow was determined at rest and during steady state grip exercise by the venous occlusion technique with a single strand mercury-in-rubber strain gauge plethysmograph and was compared with blood flow simultaneously determined by an electromagnetic flowmneter around the brachial artery before, during, and after intermittent isotonic grip exercise in eight subjects. The comparison of plethysmographic flow ( y axis) with simultaneously measured flowmeter flow ( x axis) yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.797, a slope of 1.15 and a y intercept of 9.62. When flow was normalized per 100 cc of forearm, the correlation coefficient was 0.823, the slope 1.21, and the y intercept 0.871. The overestimation of the flowmeter blood flow by the plethysmograph could be explained by flow through skin vessels which bypassed the flowmeter. When averaged plethysmographic flow was compared to total planimetered flowmeter flow during exercise, there was a 1.7 times overestimation by the former technique, which was constant over the range of exercise employed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Longhurst et al. (1974) reported an observational. Plethysmograph vs. Electromagnetic flowmeter was evaluated on Correlation of measured blood flow (r 0.823). Plethysmographic forearm blood flow measurement correlated with flowmeter readings (r=0.823 normalized) but overestimated flow by 1.7 times during exercise.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: