Select Practices in Management and Rehabilitation of Burns: A Survey Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to document the organization and current practices in physical rehabilitation across burn centers. An online survey developed for the specific purposes of this study sought information regarding a) logistics of the burn center; b) inpatient and outpatient treatment of patients with burn injury; and c) specific protocols in the treatment of a few complications secondary to burn injuries. Of the 159 responses received, 115 were received from the United States, 20 from Australia, 16 from Canada, and 7 from New Zealand. The overall sample included responses from 76 physical therapists (PTs) and 78 occupational therapists. Seventy-three of those surveyed considered themselves primarily a burn therapist. Nurses (86%) were reported as primarily responsible for wound care of inpatients, followed by wound care technicians (24%). Ninety-seven percent of the therapists reported following their own treatment plans. The trunk and areas of head and neck were treated by both PTs and occupational therapists, whereas the lower extremities continue to be treated predominantly by PTs. Some common practices regarding treatment of a few complications secondary to burn injuries such as splinting to prevent contractures, treatment of exposed or ruptured extensor tendons, exposed Achilles tendons, heterotopic ossification, postoperative ambulation, conditioning, scar massage, and use of compression garments are described. Opportunities exist for 1) developing a common document for practice guidelines in physical rehabilitation of burns; and 2) conducting collaborative studies to evaluate treatment interventions and outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".