MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ORIGINAL RESEARCH–CLINICAL SCIENCE: Reducing wound pain in venous leg ulcers with Biatain Ibu: A randomized, controlled double‐blind clinical investigation on the performance and safety

2008· article· en· W1722312534 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWound Repair and Regeneration · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersColoplast
KeywordsMedicineIbuprofenDouble blindRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaWound healingAdverse effectClinical endpointClinical trialVisual analogue scaleSurgeryInternal medicinePlaceboPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six out of 10 patients with chronic wounds suffer from persistent wound pain. A multinational and multicenter randomized double-blind clinical investigation of 122 patients compared two moist wound healing dressings: a nonadhesive foam dressing with ibuprofen (62 patients randomized to Biatain Ibu Nonadhesive Coloplast A/S) and a nonadhesive foam without ibuprofen (60 patients to Biatain Non-Adhesive-comparator). Patients were recruited from September 2005 to April 2006. The ibuprofen foam was considered successful if the pain relief on a five-point Verbal Rating Scale was higher than the comparator without compromising safety including appropriate healing rate. Additional endpoints were change in persistent wound pain between dressing changes and pain at dressing change on days 1-5 (double blind) and days 43-47 (single blind). The primary response variable, persistent pain relief, was significantly higher in the ibuprofen-foam group, as compared with the comparator on day 1-5, with a quick onset of action (p<0.05). Wound pain intensity was significantly reduced with the ibuprofen foam during day 1-5 with 40% from baseline, compared with 30% with the comparator (p<0.001). At day 43-47, the patients in the ibuprofen-foam group had a significant (p<0.05) reemergence of persistent pain and pain at dressing change (p<0.05) when the active dressing was changed to the comparator. Wound healing was similar in the ibuprofen foam and comparator group. No difference in adverse events between the comparator and the ibuprofen foam with local sustained release of low-dose ibuprofen was observed in this study. It was generally found that women reported less pain intensity than men, and pain intensity decreased with increasing age. In addition, pain intensity increased with initial pain intensity and increasing wound size. This study has demonstrated that the ibuprofen-foam dressing provided pain relief and reduced pain intensity without compromising healing or other safety parameters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it