Effect of an ibuprofen-releasing foam dressing on wound pain: a real-life RCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare an ibuprofen-releasing foam dressing (Biatain Ibu, ColoplastA/S) with local best practice in the treatment of painful exuding wounds. METHOD: In this large-scale randomised comparative study, 853 patients were randomised to either ibuprofen-releasing foam (test) dressing (n=467) or local best practice (n=386). Primary endpoint was wound pain relief from day 1-7, assessed by the patients twice daily using a five-point verbal rating scale. Secondary endpoints were reduction in pain intensity from day 0-7 (assessed using an 11-point numeric box scale), quality of life (assessed using the WHO-5 well-being index and effect on health-related activities of daily living) and the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: After seven days significantly more patients in the experimental group experienced relief from temporary and persistent pain and a reduction in pain intensity,when compared with patients in the local best practice group (p<0.0001). They also experienced a greater improvement in quality of life. The number of adverse events in both groups was low. CONCLUSION: The test dressing provided an appropriate wound healing environment, relieved temporary and persistent wound pain, and decreased pain intensity. It was also associated with an improvement in quality of life.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".