MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181329079

Cost effectiveness of an air-inflated static overlay for pressure ulcer prevention: a randomized, controlled trial.

2012· article· en· W2181329079 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Vermette, Isabelle Reeves, Jacques Lemaire

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeLakeshore General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialMann–Whitney U testPhysical therapyClinical trialSurgeryInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED:  Numerous pressure-relieving surfaces of varying costs are available for the prevention of pressure ulcers. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the efficacy or merits of using more expensive technologies. The purpose of this unblinded, randomized, prospective study was to compare the clinical and the cost effectiveness of an inflated overlay with rented, pressure-relieving surfaces for the prevention of pressure ulcers. METHODS: Patients in a 257-bed acute care facility were included if they had a Braden score of ≤ 14, had no skin lesion(s), were ≥ 18 years, weighed < 300 lb, and submitted signed consent. One hundred, ten patients (110) were randomized into a control group using either a microfluid static overlay (MSO) or a low-air-loss dynamic mattress (LALDM) with pulsation (n = 55) or into an experimental group using an inflated static overlay (ISO) (n = 55). Both groups had identical positioning protocols. No statistically significant differences were noted between the 2 groups with regard to age, gender, weight, or Braden scale score. Head-to-toe assessments were performed 3 times a week for a maximum of 14 days to deter- mine presence of pressure ulcers and comfort; Fisher's exact and chi- squared tests were used to assess categorical data, and unpaired t-test and Mann-Whitney statistic tests were used to compare continuous variables. Comparative cost of support surface use was determined at the end of the study. RESULTS: In the control group, 50 patients used an MSO and 5 patients used an LALDM; in the experimental group, 55 patients used an ISO. No significant difference in pressure ulcer incidence was found between the control (n = 6) and experimental groups (n = 2) (11% versus 4%, respectively; P = 0.2706), and there was no significant difference in comfort (90% versus 85%; P = 0.7129). However, a significant difference was noted in total cost ($13,606 CAD versus $3,364 CAD, P ≤ 0.001); the ISO was less expensive. CONCLUSION: The use of an ISO offers a cost-effective option for the prevention of pressure ulcers in a moderate to very high-risk population. .

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 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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207