ArticlePloS one2024
The reproducibility of protocols used to mediate a current-induced vasodilation in the human cutaneous microcirculation.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCurrent-induced vasodilation (CIV) can be used to assess the prostacyclin (PGI2) pathway. This study, for the first time, evaluated the reproducibility of several protocols used to mediate a CIV.
methodsThree CIV protocols were evaluated in 10 healthy participants who completed four testing sessions. Two testing sessions were conducted on the calf, separated by a period of seven days allowing interday reproducibility to be assessed. Two testing sessions were also conducted seven days apart on the forearm. At each testing session, cutaneous microvascular assessments were conducted for one hour on the right limb of interest before assessments were immediately performed on the left limb, allowing for intersite, intraday reproducibility to be evaluated. Assessments were then repeated at the same site on the right limb, allowing for intrasite, intraday reproducibility to be evaluated. Reproducibility was assessed using the within-subject coefficients of variation and the intra-class correlation coefficients.
resultsProtocol A (Pulses of 0.03, 0.06, 0.09, 0.12, 0.15, and 0.18 mA for 10 s each; 60 s intervals), Protocol B (0.1 mA for 60 s), and Protocol C (2 pulses of 0.1 mA for 10s each; 240 s interval) had good to excellent interday reproducibility for calf and forearm assessments. The intrasite, intraday reproducibility of each protocol was less clear. Intersite testing didn't improve intraday reproducibility. Reproducibility was consistently unacceptable when the microvascular response to the electrical stimulation was expressed as the absolute change and the percentage change between baseline values and the maximal plateau. A microvascular response wasn't induced ∼10% of assessments on either the calf or forearm.
conclusionsThis study indicates that a CIV is most reproducible with interday testing and when data are expressed as the maximal plateau in perfusion units or as cutaneous vascular conductance, and as the area under the curve.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.