Pressure ulcer pain: a systematic literature review and national pressure ulcer advisory panel white paper.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain is an ever-present problem in patients with pressure ulcers. As an advocate for persons with pressure ulcers, the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) is concerned about pain. To synthesize available pressure ulcer pain literature, a systematic review was performed of English language literature, specific to human research, 1992 to April 2008, using PubMed and the Cumulative Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Fifteen relevant papers were found; they examined pain assessment tools, topical analgesia for pain management, and/or descriptions of persons with pressure ulcer pain. Studies had small sample sizes and included only adults. The literature established that 1) pressure ulcers cause pain; 2) pain assessment was typically found to be self-reported using different versions of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, Faces Rating Scale, or Visual Analog Scale; 3) pain assessment instruments should be appropriate to patient cognitive level and medical challenges; 4) in some cases, topical medications can ease pain and although information on systemic medication is limited, pain medications have been found to negatively affect appetite; and 5) wound treatment is painful, particularly dressing changes. Research gaps include the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcer pain, the impact of pain on nutrition, and pressure ulcer pain considerations for special groups (eg, children, end-of-life patients, and bariatric patients). The NPUAP presents this white paper as the current scientific know-ledge base on the topic. Research regarding the multidimensional aspects of pressure ulcer pain is strongly recommended.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".