A Randomized Crossover Investigation of Pain at Dressing Change Comparing 2 Foam Dressings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pain at dressing change is the result of several factors including trauma and skin stripping caused by the repeated removal of adhesive dressings. GOALS: To evaluate pain during dressing changes comparing a soft silicone foam dressing (Mepilex Border; Mölnlycke Health Care AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) with an adhesive hydrocellular polyurethane foam dressing (Allevyn Adhesive; Smith & Nephew, Hull, United Kingdom). METHODS: In this randomized crossover study, subjects were randomized to 1 of the 2 foam dressings for the first 2 scheduled follow-up visits. At visit 3, local wound treatment was switched to the alternate dressing until the end of the study (visits 4 and 5). Pain was measured with a visual analog scale and the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. The characteristics of the wound and the occurrence of adverse events were documented at each scheduled visit. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients entered into the study, and 26 patients completed all 5 follow-up study visits. Results indicated lower levels of pain at dressing removal and less periwound maceration in patients who were randomized to the silicone dressings. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that soft silicone dressing is associated with less pain before and during dressing changes along with decreased periwound maceration.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".