Effectiveness of a multi‐layer foam dressing in preventing sacral pressure ulcers for the early acute care of patients with a traumatic spinal cord injury: comparison with the use of a gel mattress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with spinal cord injury are at risk of sacral pressure ulcers due to, among other reasons, prolonged immobilisation. The effectiveness of a multi-layer foam dressing installed pre-operatively in reducing sacral pressure ulcer occurrence in spinal cord injured patients was compared to that of using a gel mattress, and stratified analyses were performed on patients with complete tetraplegia and paraplegia. Socio-demographic and clinical data were collected from 315 patients admitted in a level-I trauma centre following a spinal cord injury between April 2010 and March 2016. Upon arrival to the emergency room and until surgery, patients were transferred on a foam stretcher pad with a viscoelastic polymer gel mattress (before 1 October 2014) or received a multi-layer foam dressing applied to their sacral-coccygeal area (after 1 October 2014). The occurrence of sacral pressure ulcer during acute hospitalisation was similar irrespective of whether patients received the dressing or the gel mattress. It was found that 82% of patients with complete tetraplegia receiving the preventive dressing developed sacral ulcers as compared to only 36% of patients using the gel mattress. Although multi-layer dressings were suggested to improve skin protection and decrease pressure ulcer occurrence in critically ill patients, such preventive dressings are not superior to gel mattresses in spinal cord injured patients and should be used with precaution, especially in complete tetraplegia.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".