A Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing a Transparent Dressing and a Dry Gauze on the Exit Site of Long Term Central Venous Catheters of Hemodialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the risk of bacteremia, estimate the cost and evaluate the quality of life by using a transparent dressing (TD) versus (vs) a dry gauze (DG) on the exit site of long term central I.V. catheters (LTCC) of hemodialysis patients. This 6-months preliminary study was conducted on 58 patients (pts) randomized to receive DG replaced 3 times/week (29 pts) or TD replaced every 7 days (29 pts). Data on patients, conditions of the exit site, local infection, bacteremia, quality of life and cost related to each type of dressing were collected. Two pts in the DG group experienced bacteremia related to their LTCC vs 1 pt in the group TD. A total of 7 (DG) vs 13 (TD) pts experienced skin condition changes at the catheter exit site. Some skin reactions, erythema and pruritus, did occur initially in the group TD and was due in part to insufficient drying time of the skin preparation solution. The estimated individual, weekly costs for using the DG was $7.60 vs $4.72 Canadian dollars for the TD. The SF-36trade mark scores did not show a significant difference between the 2 groups during the study (3.8 (PCS), 6.4 (MCS) at study end). Although this study was statistically underpowered, it suggests that the incidence of bacteremia was not increased with the use of a TD. Moreover, the use of a TD allowed fewer dressing changes, lowered total treatment costs, with no observed unfavorable impact on the quality of life and without significant local complications of the exit site. Based on the positive results observed in this pilot study, further study is warranted to examine the cost effectiveness of long-term use of TD dressings on dialysis catheter exit sites.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".