Post-Appendectomy Surgical Site Infection Rate after Using an Antimicrobial Film Incise Drape: A Prospective Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An appendectomy is a contaminated or potentially dirty surgical procedure that can be associated with surgical site infection (SSI). METHODS: A single-center unblinded prospective cohort study examined the role of antimicrobial incise film drapes in lowering the rate of SSI after appendectomy. Any patient aged 12 years or older who was scheduled for open appendectomy for acute appendicitis was included. Patients were assigned to two groups. Group 1 (n=52) had the standard five-minute skin preparation with 10% povidone-iodine soap followed by the application of an antimicrobial film incise drape, and group 2 (n=39) had the standard skin preparation alone. RESULTS: Six (11.5%) of the 52 patients who had the antimicrobial film incise drape and two (5.1%) of the 39 patients who did not have the drape developed SSI (p=NS). Of the six patients in the antimicrobial film group with post-operative SSI, three had a perforated appendix, two had a gangrenous appendix, and one had an inflamed appendix. In group 2, one patient had an inflamed appendix and the other had a perforated appendix. The median length of stay in the hospital was two days (range 1-11 days) for both groups. CONCLUSION: Our study did not support the view that antimicrobial film incise drapes can lower the rate of post-appendectomy SSI. Moreover, the length of stay was not minimized by the use of these drapes.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it