Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 590

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Critical Reappraisal of the Bleeding Time*

Rodgers, R. P., Levin, Jack·1990·Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis

Abstract

Since its initial invention by the French worker Milian in 1901, the bleeding time has been put forward as a clinically useful test in three contexts: diagnosis (particularly of platelet disorders), prediction of clinically important bleeding, and assessment of the adequacy of various forms of therapy. Attempting a complete review of the published experience with this test, we assessed 862 articles. Original bleeding time data appeared in 664 of these articles, from which we tabulated 1083 distinct studies in humans. ROC analysis, which characterizes the sensitivity and specificity of the test, was applied in every instance in which published data were adequate (34 studies). ROCs from 27 studies of the bleeding time in association with aspirin ingestion reveal high variability in the ability of the bleeding time to detect aspirin intake, and provide evidence against claims that recently devised bleeding time methods have improved discriminatory ability based on improved reproducibility. Two ROCs from surgical studies, in which the bleeding time was used to try to predict abnormal bleeding, were statistically indistinguishable from that of a completely noninformative test. In ROCs from five studies of abnormal bleeding in uremia, the test performed approximately the same as the platelet count or hematocrit (taken singly); in one of these studies, prothrombin consumption was determined and was a better predictor of bleeding than bleeding time, hematocrit, or platelet count. In the settings of renal biopsy (one study) and massive transfusion (one study), data allowed estimation of predictive value: in no instance was there evidence that the bleeding time significantly altered a priori estimates (based on prevalence) of the risk of bleeding. Linear regression analysis was applied to data from 23 studies relating platelet count to bleeding time, to assess published claims that the bleeding time and platelet count follow a predictively useful linear relationship. In 22 of 23 instances, the inverse relationship between bleeding time and platelet count was associated with broad statistical scatter, making it impossible to predict precisely one variable given the other. The pathophysiology of an abnormal bleeding time remains poorly understood. The bleeding time is affected by a large number of diseases, drugs, physiologic factors, test conditions, and therapeutic actions, not all of them platelet-related. The test is likely to remain widely used for the diagnosis of inherited disorders of platelet function, such as von Willebrand's syndrome, despite the lack of clear criteria for its use in this context.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-2007-1002658

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 590

Metadata

Authors
Rodgers, R. P., & Levin, J.
Venue
Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis
Published
1990-01
Volume
16
Issue
01
Pages
1-20
ISSN
  • 0094-6176
  • 1098-9064
OpenAlex
W2073923734
Cited by
590
References
0
FWCI
12.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Critical Reappraisal of the Bleeding Time*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1055/s-2007-1002658
The paper
Rodgers, R. P., & Levin, J. (1990). A Critical Reappraisal of the Bleeding Time*. Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1002658

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.