MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027323900 · doi:10.1111/jgs.12440

Turning for Ulcer ReductioN: A Multisite Randomized Clinical Trial in Nursing Homes

2013· article· en· W2027323900 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nancy Bergstrom, Susan D. Horn, Mary Pat Rapp, Anita Stern, Ryan Barrett, Michael Watkiss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Public Health
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchU.S. Public Health ServiceNational Institutes of HealthOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Randomized controlled trialNursing homesInternal medicinePhysical therapyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine optimal repositioning frequency of nursing home (NH) residents at risk for pressure ulcers (PrUs) when cared for on high-density foam mattresses. DESIGN: Multisite, randomized, clinical trial, known as Turning for Ulcer ReductioN (TURN Study). SETTINGS: NHs in the United States (n = 20) and Canada (n = 7) using high-density foam mattresses. PARTICIPANTS: Consenting residents (N = 942) aged 65 and older without PrUs at moderate (scores 13-14) or high (scores 10-12) risk of PrUs according to the Braden Scale. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly allocated using risk stratification (moderate vs high) to a repositioning schedule (2, 3, or 4 hour) for 3 weeks. Blinded assessors assessed skin weekly. MEASUREMENTS: PrU incidence (coccyx or sacrum, trochanter, heels). RESULTS: Participants were mostly female (77.6%) and Caucasian (80.5%) and had a mean age of 85.1 ± 7.7. The most common diagnoses were cardiovascular (76.9%) and dementia (72.5%). Nineteen (2.0%) participants developed superficial PrUs. There was no significant difference (Wilcoxon test for ordered categories) in PrU incidence (P = .68) according to repositioning group (2 hour, 8/321, 2.5%; 3 hour, 2/326, 0.6%; 4 hour, 9/295, 3.1%), nor was there a statistically significant difference in the incidence of PrU between the high and moderate-risk groups (P = .79). Also, PrU incidence was not statistically significantly different between high-risk participants based on repositioning schedule (6/325, 1.8%, P = .90) or between moderate-risk participants based on repositioning schedule (13/617, 2.1%, P = .68). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in PrU incidence over 3 weeks of observation between those turned at 2-, 3-, or 4-hour intervals in this population of residents using high-density foam mattresses at moderate and high risk of developing PrUs when they were repositioned consistently and skin was monitored. This finding has major implications for use of nursing staff and cost of NH care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.415 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207