Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc ; 96(4): 318-22, 2006.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16868325

ABSTRACT

Nitric oxide is an endogenous gas released by endothelial cells that induces vasodilatation and plays other important roles in the wound-healing process. Nitroglycerin preparations are liberators of nitric oxide. Podiatric physicians have used nitroglycerin paste and patches on patients in an attempt to increase perfusion to the foot. However, the drug's efficacy seems to be largely anecdotal. A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was conducted to investigate the efficacy of a nitroglycerin patch in locally increasing perfusion to the foot. Twenty-two healthy subjects were randomly assigned to either a drug group (nitroglycerin patch, 0.2 mg/h) or a placebo group (adhesive patch without active ingredient). The patch was applied to the plantar arch of the foot. Objective and subjective measures were then used to detect changes in perfusion to the foot after a 2-hour experimental period. The objective measures, cutaneous thermometry and photoplethysmography, found no significant measurable difference in perfusion to the foot between the drug and placebo groups (P > .05). A subjective questionnaire used to assess changes in temperature or sensation detected by the subject yielded similar results. Thus a nitroglycerin patch dose of 0.2 mg/h showed no measurable ability to increase perfusion to the foot. Further research is needed to validate the indications for this therapy.


Subject(s)
Foot/blood supply , Nitroglycerin/administration & dosage , Perfusion , Administration, Cutaneous , Adult , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies
2.
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc ; 93(5): 392-8, 2003.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-13130087

ABSTRACT

The purposes of this study were to develop an instrument to assess the validity of randomized controlled trials and to report on the differences in the validity of randomized controlled trials between two podiatric medical journals and a mainstream medical journal. The study demonstrated that after adequate training, there can be agreement among reviewers evaluating the quality of published randomized controlled trials using an established instrument and guidelines. The results of the study indicate that randomized controlled trials published in podiatric medical journals are less credible than those published in a mainstream medical journal.


Subject(s)
Periodicals as Topic , Podiatry , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards , Humans , Peer Review, Research , Podiatry/standards , Publishing/standards , Reproducibility of Results , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...