Effectiveness of cutaneous warming systems on temperature control: meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of a meta-analysis to identify the effectiveness of different types of cutaneous warming systems in temperature control for patients undergoing elective surgery. BACKGROUND: Hypothermia is a common and serious complication of surgery. Different cutaneous warming systems are used to prevent hypothermia during surgery but there have been no previous meta-analyses of the effectiveness of different warming systems in controlling temperature. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a search of the CINAHL (2000 to April 2009), Medline (2000 to April 2009), Embase (2000 to April 2009) and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (2000 to April 2009) databases for randomized controlled trials published in English, Spanish and Portuguese. The primary outcome measure of interest was core body temperature. METHODS: A systematic review incorporating meta-analysis was carried out. RESULTS: From 329 papers, 23 trials compared warming systems. Forced-air warming systems had a strong tendency towards superior temperature control over passive insulation via cotton blankets (mean difference: 0.29 degrees C; 95% confidence interval: -0.02 to 0.59, three trials 292 patients) and radiant warming systems (mean difference: 0.16 degrees C; 95% confidence interval: -0.01 to 0.33, three trials, 161 patients). However, circulating water garments tended to be more effective than forced-air warming systems (mean difference: -0.73 degrees C; 95% confidence interval: -1.51 to 0.05, I(2) = 97%; four trials, 198 patients). Pooled results approached statistical significance and indicated clinically meaningful differences in temperature control. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that circulating water garments offer better temperature control than forced-air warming systems, and both are more effective than passive warming devices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".