Beneficial effect of resin salve in treatment of severe pressure ulcers: a prospective, randomized and controlled multicentre trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resin salve of the Norway spruce (Picea abies) has been used in folk medicine to heal wounds and infections. OBJECTIVES: To study its clinical effectiveness in the treatment of pressure ulcers of the skin. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled multicentre trial involving 37 patients with grade II-IV pressure ulcers in 11 primary care hospitals was carried out between 2005 and 2007. The ulcers were randomly allocated to receive either resin salve or sodium carboxymethylcellulose hydrocolloid polymer treatment. The inclusion criterion was grade II-IV pressure ulcer. Exclusion criteria were a life expectancy of less than 6 months or a malignant disease. The primary outcome measure was complete healing of the ulcer within 6 months. Secondary outcome measures were partial healing of the ulcer, and successful eradication of bacterial strains cultured from the ulcers at study entry. RESULTS: Thirteen patients of the resin group and nine patients of the control group completed the 6-month trial. All ulcers healed in 12 of the 13 patients (92%) in the resin group and in four of the nine patients (44%) in the control group (P=0.003; power 73%). Complete healing of the ulcers over time was significantly more common in the resin group than in the control group (P=0.013). Bacterial cultures from the ulcer area more often became negative within 1 month in the resin group. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional resin salve is significantly more effective in the treatment of infected and noninfected severe pressure ulcers than cellulose polymer gauzes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".