MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164544637 · doi:10.1097/ta.0b013e31825c130e

Negative-pressure wound therapy for critically ill adults with open abdominal wounds

2012· review· en· W2164544637 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNegative-pressure wound therapyProspective cohort studyRelative riskSurgeryRandomized controlled trialCohort studyConfidence intervalMeta-analysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Open abdominal management with negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is increasingly used for critically ill trauma and surgery patients. We sought to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of NPWT versus alternate temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques in critically ill adults with open abdominal wounds. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published and unpublished comparative studies. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database, the Center for Reviews and Dissemination, clinical trials registries, and bibliographies of included articles. Two authors independently abstracted data on study design, methodological quality, patient characteristics, and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 2,715 citations identified, 2 randomized controlled trials and 9 cohort studies (3 prospective/6 retrospective) met inclusion criteria. Methodological quality of included prospective studies was moderate. One randomized controlled trial observed an improved fascial closure rate (relative risk [RR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-5.3) and length of hospital stay after addition of retention sutured sequential fascial closure to the Kinetic Concepts Inc. (KCI) vacuum-assisted closure (VAC). Another reported a trend toward enhanced fascial closure using the KCI VAC versus Barker's vacuum pack (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 0.95-7.1). A prospective cohort study observed improved mortality (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.92) and fascial closure (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0) for patients who received the ABThera versus Barker's vacuum pack. Another noted a reduced arterial lactate, intra-abdominal pressure, and hospital stay for those fitted with the KCI VAC versus Bogotá bag. Most included retrospective studies exhibited low methodological quality and reported no mortality or fascial closure benefit for NPWT. CONCLUSION: Limited prospective comparative data suggests that NPWT versus alternate TAC techniques may be linked with improved outcomes. However, the clinical heterogeneity and quality of available studies preclude definitive conclusions regarding the preferential use of NPWT over alternate TAC techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level III.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it