The Effect of Abdominal Support on Functional Outcomes in Patients Following Major Abdominal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial
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
PURPOSE: Immobility and pain are modifiable risk factors for development of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary morbidity after major abdominal surgery (MAS). The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of abdominal incision support with an elasticized abdominal binder on postoperative walk performance (mobility), perceived distress, pain, and pulmonary function in patients following MAS. METHODS: Seventy-five patients scheduled to undergo MAS via laparotomy were randomized to experimental (binder) or control (no binder) groups. Sixty (33 male, 27 female; mean age 58±14.9 years) completed the study. Preoperative measurements of 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance, perceived distress, pain, and pulmonary function were repeated 1, 3, and 5 days after surgery. RESULTS: Surgery was associated with marked postoperative reductions (p<0.001) in walk distance (∼75-78%, day 3) and forced vital capacity (35%, all days) for both groups. Improved 6MWT distance by day 5 was greater (p<0.05) for patients wearing a binder (80%) than for the control group (48%). Pain and symptom-associated distress remained unchanged following surgery with binder usage, increasing significantly (p<0.05) only in the no binder group. CONCLUSION: Elasticized abdominal binders provide a non-invasive intervention for enhancing recovery of walk performance, controlling pain and distress, and improving patients' experience following MAS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it