A pilot (real‐life) randomised clinical evaluation of a pain‐relieving foam dressing: (ibuprofen‐foam versus local best practice)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate a novel foam dressing with continuous low-level release of ibuprofen (Biatain-Ibu foam dressing, Coloplast A/S, Humlebaek, Denmark) in persons with leg ulcers compared to local best practice. An open comparative and prospective block-randomised study of 24 patients was conducted in a Canadian wound clinic. Twelve patients were randomised to ibuprofen-foam and 12 patients to local best practice. The study population consisted of patients with chronic, painful exudating leg ulcers. The patients rated their wound pain intensity at baseline and after the first dressing application. Pain intensity in the morning and evening was rated during a period of 1 week using a numeric box scale (NBS). A t-test compared the main differences in pain intensity and a five-point verbal rating scale measured the patients' pain relief. At the last clinical visit, pain after dressing change was assessed using an NBS. In addition, wound size, percentage of healthy granulation tissue and the presence of peri-ulcer erythema, were (all) evaluated at inclusion and the end of the study. The nurses and patients both evaluated the relative dressing performance and exudate management at the last study visit. This study demonstrates that the ibuprofen-foam dressing decreased wound pain in patients with leg ulcers compared to best practice. The ibuprofen-foam dressing was associated with: diminished chronic pain between dressing changes, reduced acute pain at dressing change, increased healthy granulation tissue, decreased peri-wound erythema and excellent exudate handling capacity. It can be concluded from the results of the study that the combination of foam with a continuous low-dose release of ibuprofen may offer a valuable new therapeutic approach to the reduction of wound pain.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".