MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980520617 · doi:10.1089/acm.2009.0317

The Effect of <i>Hypericum perforatum</i> on the Wound Healing and Scar of Cesarean

2010· article· en· W1980520617 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEcchymosisPlaceboRandomized controlled trialEdemaWound healingSurgeryVisual analogue scaleAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of Hypericum perforatum on cesarean wound healing and hypertrophic scar. DESIGN: This was a randomized, double-blind clinical trial study. SETTING: The study was conducted in Samen-Ol-Aemmeh (Pbuh) Hospital in Mashhad, Iran. SUBJECTS: The subjects included 144 women with surgical childbirth who had eligible criteria. INTERVENTION: The participants were randomly assigned to three groups. The treatment and placebo groups applied H. perforatum or placebo ointment 3 times a day for 16 days based on consecutive coded ointments. The control group remained without any intervention postoperatively. ASSESSMENT: Wound healing was assessed on the 10th day postcesarean using the REEDA scale (REEDA stands for redness, edema, ecchymosis, discharge, and approximation), which had criteria including redness, edema, ecchymosis, discharge, and approximation. On the 40th day, the degree of scarring was assessed using the Vancouver scar scale including pigmentation, height, pliability, and vascularity. The subjects were also asked some questions about pain by using the Visual Analogue Scale and pruritus of scar. RESULTS: The mean age of all the study subjects was 23.50 +/- 4.03 and mean parity was 1.23 +/- 0.48. There were significant differences in wound healing on the 10th day (p < 0.005) and scar formation on the 40th day postpartum (p < 0.0001) between treatment group with placebo and control groups. However, the placebo group had no differences in wound healing (p = 0.93) and scar formation (p = 0.11) with the control group. In addition, significantly lower pain and pruritus were reported by the treatment group compared with the placebo and control groups on the 40th day postpartum. CONCLUSIONS: Topical application of H. perforatum is safe and can facilitate cesarean wound healing and minimize formation of scar and its pain and pruritus.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.300 · 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