Topical negative pressure wound therapy: a review of its role and guidelines for its use in the management of acute wounds
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past two decades, topical negative pressure (TNP) wound therapy has gained wide acceptance as a genuine strategy in the treatment algorithm for a wide variety of acute and chronic wounds. Although extensive experimental and clinical evidence exists to support its use and despite the recent emergence of randomised control trials, its role and indications have yet to be fully determined. This article provides a qualitative overview of the published literature appertaining to the use of TNP therapy in the management of acute wounds by an international panel of experts using standard methods of appraisal. Particular focus is applied to the use of TNP for the open abdomen, sternal wounds, lower limb trauma, burns and tissue coverage with grafts and dermal substitutes. We provide evidence-based recommendations for indications and techniques in TNP wound therapy and, where studies are insufficient, consensus on best practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it