A Retrospective Comparison of the Performance of Two Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Systems in the Management of Wounds of Mixed Etiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been shown to be effective in the management of chronic and surgical wounds. The two most widely used modalities of NPWT are vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) therapy (KCI, Inc., San Antonio, Texas) and the RENASYS NPWT system (Smith & Nephew, Hull, United Kingdom). This evaluation compares the performance of the two systems in the management of wounds of mixed etiology. Approach: The evaluation is based on retrospective evaluation of more than 1,000 patients treated with NPWT in a community setting in Canada. Results: Patients were well matched according to their baseline characteristics, including age, sex, and wound characteristics. No difference was seen between the two NPWT systems in terms of the percentage of patients reaching their predetermined treatment goal (90.0% and 93.6%, respectively). The time taken to achieve the treatment goal (median 8 weeks in both groups), percentage reduction in wound area (64.2% and 65.3%, respectively), and weekly rate of reduction in wound area (9.7% and 9.4%, respectively; p = 0.156). Innovation: This evaluation is believed to comprise the largest cohort of patients treated with NPWT published to date and is one of the few studies that have attempted to provide a direct comparison of the performance of alternative NPWT systems. Conclusion: Findings suggest that there are no clinically meaningful differences in the efficacy and performance of the two most widely used NPWT devices, based on consideration of a number of wound outcomes.
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) | 0.000 | 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".