A real‐world expert opinion on the use of a combination of hyaluronic acid and amino acids in the management of acute and chronic wounds
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The hierarchy of clinical evidence in support of medical devices ranges from case studies to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and meta-analyses. While RCTs are seen as the gold standard for medicinal products, case studies provide some real-world insight as to the usefulness of medical devices, especially within the management of wounds. As wound carers/healers, we understand the complexity of these patients, with a variety of wound types, co-morbidities and a range of potential clinical outcomes. In wound patients however, like many other clinical conditions, patients are individual with their own unique challenges and outcomes. This is where clinical case studies can provide insight into the intricacies of the individual rather than the collective outcomes of a pooled population in a RCT: a real-world, personalised view. This could be a useful stage in supporting interventions and supplement the data derived from RCTs. In the two articles within this supplement, the authors present a review of the previously published clinical support for a unique hyaluronic acid and amino acids combination product (Vulnamin®). It also presents additional clinical evidence obtained through a consensus meeting of an international group of experts regarding their clinical experience with the use of the combination product in difficult-to-treat wounds. Their objective was to reach a consensus on how and when to utilise such products to provide a cost-effective, convenient option in all healthcare settings to improve outcomes for patients. Members of the Expert Panel presented their clinical experience with the product range. The case reports presented were obtained in Italy, Poland, Turkey and the United Kingdom, with data collection in accordance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice. From this real-world information, the panel of experts presented recommendations for the use of the product range in clinical practice. The 14 case studies presented demonstrate successful use of this hyaluronic acid and amino acids combination to be effective in the management of acute and chronic wounds. While the experts provide guidance on the use of such an approach in a variety of clinical situations, they do recommend that future, large-scale, randomised, controlled clinical trials are required in different clinical settings. In addition, the experts recommend further health economic data and reimbursement studies are carried out. The information provided gives a real-world picture on the flexibility of this combination product in the management of difficult to heal wounds, while recognising the need for further data. From this case series and supportive clinical review, the expert clinicians recommend considering the use of a combination product of hyaluronic acids and amino acids in several clinical situations. No interest is declared by both authors in the sponsor of the articles in this supplement.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,027 | 0,112 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,020 | 0,013 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,012 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».