Pressure ulcers: diagnostics and interventions aimed at wound‐related complaints: a review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe the current scientific evidence in the field of diagnostics and treatment of pain, malodour and exudate from pressure ulcers and to give recommendations for practice, based on these findings. BACKGROUND: Patients with pressure ulcers are confronted with symptoms of chronic wounds and impaired wound healing. Assessment and treatment of these symptoms have received very little attention. DESIGN: Systematic literature review. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane, were searched for studies on pain, malodour and exudate in patients with pressure ulcers. RESULTS: The McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Visual Analogue Scale and the Faces Rating Scale are useful instruments to assess pressure ulcer related pain. Strong evidence was found to support a positive effect of (dia)morphine. Some evidence was found to support a positive effect of benzydamine gel and Eutectic Mixture of Local Anaesthetic-cream. Wound malodour is subjectively assessed. In a laboratory study, it is proved that activated charcoal is capable of absorbing gas molecules causing malodour. At present, no studies are available on the odour-absorbing capacity of activated charcoal dressings in pressure ulcer patients. Exudate is a symptom of impaired wound healing. The Pressure Sore Status Tool is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the wound healing process. There is a possible indication that hydrocolloid positively influences healing time because the absorption of exudates is more effective. CONCLUSION: Little sound research has been performed on wound-related complaints in patients with pressure ulcers. Nevertheless several recommendations could be made on the present state of the art. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Regarding pressure ulcer related pain, this review supports the intervention of local pain relieve in patients with pressure ulcers. Regarding pressure ulcer related odour and exudates, this study identifies the gaps in evidence and research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".