A liquid film‐forming acrylate for peri‐wound protection: a systematic review and meta‐analysis (3M™ Cavilon™ no‐sting barrier film)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To undertake a systematic review of all reliable evaluations of the clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of a film-forming liquid acrylate in the protection of the chronic ulcer peri-wound skin. Results from searches were scrutinised by two reviewers to identify possible randomised controlled trials and full reports of these were obtained. Details of eligible studies were extracted and summarised independently by two reviewers using a data extraction sheet. Meta-analysis was used to combine the results of trials where the interventions and outcome measures were sufficiently similar. A total of nine eligible studies were identified. The review reveals that a liquid-film forming acrylate (Cavilon no-sting barrier film, 3M, Minneapolis, MN, USA) is a safe and effective skin barrier to protect the peri-wound area of chronic ulcers. There is no difference between the protective properties of different barrier methods that are used to protect the peri-wound skin around chronic ulcers. Compared with no treatment or a placebo, this liquid film-forming acrylate has a significant impact on the integrity of the peri-wound skin. In addition, it has significant benefits in terms of pain control and patient comfort, and its use may reduce nursing time.
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 | 0.021 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".