segmental bioimpedance for measuring am-lodipine-induced pedal edema. tween the pitting score and water displacement or seg-mental bioimpedance. Blood Pressure  meropenem Statistically signi ant decreases in SBP and DBP were observed with amlodipinepared with pla-cebo at weeks and . Correlations between BP reductions and edema end points were not signi ant . DISCUSSION In this stu the detection of lower limb edema us-ing segmental bioimpedance spectroscopy current was not distinguishable from that of water displacement. Segmental BIS was correlated with lower limb water displacement and was associated with similar standardized effect sizes at all time points during amlodipine administration. No increase in precision of the esti-mates was found bybining across all time points; as su the ef acy of quantitative differen-tiation between BIS and lower limb water displace-ment was not improved.

Neither the clinical assess-ment of pitting nor the measurement of ankle circumference  Evodiamine had sensitivity or standardized effect March ) in this study of segmental bioimpedance Treatment Difference Diastolic Placebo Amlodipine Treatment Difference Systolic Placebo Water Displacement 3) or placebo . to 5 LS mean Between-patient SD Median Range LS least squares; RMSE Root-mean-square-error. RMSE. effect size . P . P . 6 to Parameter Amlodipine Clinical Therapeutics sizes that were as robust as segmental resistance from bioelectrical impedance analysis . Water displacement is considered a well-accept objective method for the assessment of lower limb edema. This meth howev is not ideal because subjects must submerge their lower limbs in wat the water temperature must be controlled for bothfort and maximal accura and the water norxacin 70458-96-7 might spi caus-ing a disruption in the clinical setting.

The use of seg-mental BIS avoids all of these inconveniences. Pitti the most clinically used techniq is the most subjective method. In this stu the number of low-end pitting  buy dyphylline scores increased in both the amlodip-ine and placebo groups. Moreov pitting was the least sensitive to the early detection of edema and not as useful for identifying edema before it reached clini-cally signi ant severity. Subjectivity was also an issue when patients are asked to identify lower limb edema themselv as indicated by the low sensitivity and speci ity of self-assessment. The increase in pitting assessments and self-assessment of edema may have resulted from the subjective nature of the pitting assess-ment in this double-blind study. There may have been an expectation of the development of edema; it oc-curred in both the amlodipine and placebo groups. Clinical assessment of pitting was the only technique of those tested in this study that did not require a baseline measurement.

As su pitting is the pre-ferred method for the assessment of the prevalence of pitting in a  anatomy cross-section single time point analysis. This study attempted to assess the ef acy of BIA resistance in the detection of edema from a single as-sessment using aparison of the ratios of resistance at kHz to resistance at 0 kHz across pitting scores to determine a diagnostic ratio score to identify edema. This method was based on the assumption that resis-tance at 0 kHz would decrease with excess extracel-lular water accumulati .