A site rotation scheme that is easy enough to actually follow Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
A follow-up question about site rotation scheme that I did not know to ask the first time.
The earlier thread answered what I asked. What I should have asked is below, and I think it is the one that matters.
I had written a reply contradicting the opening post and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The most useful reply I ever got about site rotation scheme was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.
Sensible. I would want the same detail before I acted on it either.
If you have to inject at a different time of day than usual, that is a much smaller perturbation than it feels for a weekly compound with a week-long half-life.
Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.
Bleeding at the injection site: normal and usually minimal. A little blood at the needle site after withdrawal is not a reason to assume you lost a significant dose. The needle passed through tissue and there is a small amount of bleeding in the tract.
It reads as pedantry until the day it does not.
Adding the measurement that post #10 says would settle it.
Site reactions that appear immediately and settle within a day are described commonly here. Ones that appear a day later and spread are a different observation and worth describing to a clinician rather than a forum.
I have left out the parts I could not verify.
On site rotation scheme, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
Where I part company with post #13, and it is a narrow parting.
Two claims get bundled together under site rotation scheme and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
The arithmetic in post #14 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
If you have to inject at a different time of day than usual, that is a much smaller perturbation than it feels for a weekly compound with a week-long half-life.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.
Answering the question post #13 raises rather than the one it answers.
Where the site rotation scheme reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
Alcohol swabbing and letting the site dry is the whole of the preparation for a subcutaneous injection into intact skin. Injecting before it dries is what stings.
Site rotation scheme has been discussed here with more heat than it deserves, mostly because two definitions have been in play the whole time.
Worth separating two things that post #16 runs together.
What I would tell a new member reading about site rotation scheme for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.
Everything in post #21 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Site rotation scheme would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
Narrowing post #21, because the general version has more than one answer.
The strongest argument against my own position on site rotation scheme, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.
Post #25 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
An honest declaration on site rotation scheme: I have a prior here and it is strong enough that you should weight what I say downward. Stating it rather than hiding it.
Answering the question post #25 raises rather than the one it answers.
Note the site alongside the dose. If a local reaction appears three weeks later you will want to know where the previous four injections went.
That holds under the stated conditions and I have stated them.
Trying to state the site rotation scheme position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
I had written a reply contradicting post #25 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Leaving the needle in for a couple of seconds after depressing the plunger reduces leakage at the site. It costs nothing and it is the fix for the "some came back out" question.
That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
A note on scope: what I am saying about site rotation scheme applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking.