Evidence Hub

Transcutaneous flow related variables measured in vivo: the effects of gender

Rodrigues LM, Pinto PC, Leal A

BMC dermatology, 2001

16 participants · 21 citations

Abstract

Background: The identification of potential sources of error is a crucial step for any new assessment technique. This is the case for transcutaneous variables, such as flow and arterial gases, which have been applied as functional indicators of various aspects of human health. Regarding gender, a particular subject-related determinant, it is often claimed that women present higher transcutaneous oxygen pressure (tcpO2) values than men. However, the statistical significance of this finding is still uncertain.

Methods: The haemodynamical-vascular response to a local reactive hyperaemia procedure (the tourniquet cuff manoeuvre) was studied in two previously selected group of volunteers (n = 16; 8 women and 8 men). The effect of gender was assessed under standardised experimental conditions, using the transcutaneous flow-related variables tcpO2-tcpCO2 and Laser-doppler Flowmetry (LDF).

Results: Regarding tcpO2, statistically significant differences between genders were not found, although higher values were consistently found for the gases in the female group. Regarding LDF, high statistically significant differences (p < 0.005) were found, with the men's group presenting the highest values and variability. Other derived parameters used to characterise the vascular response following the cuff-deflation (t-peak) were similar in both groups.

Conclusions: The relative influence of gender was not clearly demonstrated using these experimental conditions. However the gender-related…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 16 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free