Key result
Bleeding time measured on the leg was not significantly different from the arm before (5.8 vs 5.6 minutes; P>0.50) or after aspirin ingestion (9.9 vs 10.2 minutes; P>0.50).
Why the study?
Does performing the standardized bleeding time on the leg provide comparable results to the arm in healthy volunteers?
Population
30 healthy volunteers
Comparison
Standardized bleeding time performed on the… vs Standardized bleeding time performed on the…
Follow-up
2 hours
Authors
Loading...
Leg may serve as alternative bleeding time site in healthy volunteers; leaves open validation before clinical adoption.
Cross-Sectional (n=30)
Does performing the standardized bleeding time on the leg provide comparable results to the arm in healthy volunteers?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.8% vs 5.6%
p-value: p=>0.50
The leg is an equally reliable site as the arm for determining standardized bleeding times and detecting aspirin-induced prolongation in normal persons.
Hertzendorf et al. (1987) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy volunteers (n=30). Bleeding time measurement on the leg vs. Bleeding time measurement on the arm was evaluated on Preaspirin bleeding time (minutes) (p=>0.50). Bleeding time measured on the leg was not significantly different from the arm before (5.8 vs 5.6 minutes; P>0.50) or after aspirin ingestion (9.9 vs 10.2 minutes; P>0.50).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: