Study protocol for a randomized controlled pilot-trial on the semiocclusive treatment of fingertip amputation injuries using a novel finger cap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Fingertip amputation injuries are common in all ages. Conservatively treated fingertips can regenerate skin and soft tissues to form a functionally and cosmetically excellent new fingertip. Little is known about this ability that, in humans, is confined to the fingertips. Even less is known about the role of the bacteria that regularly colonize these wounds without negative impact on regeneration and healing.As an alternative to surgery, self-adhesive film dressings are commonly used to establish a wet chamber around the injury. These dressings leak malodorous wound fluid eventually until the wound is dry. Having that into consideration, we have therefore developed a silicone finger cap that forms a mechanically protected, wet chamber around the injury for optimal regeneration conditions. It contains a puncturable reservoir for excess wound fluid, which can be thus routinely analyzed for diagnostic and research purposes.This study protocol explains the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) on the semiocclusive treatment of fingertip amputations in both children and adults comparing traditional film dressings with the novel silicone finger cap. Being the first RCT using 2 medical devices not yet certified for this indication, it will gather valuable information for the understanding of fingertip regeneration and the design of future definitive studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: By employing an innovative pseudo-cross-over-design with a dichotomous primary endpoint based on patients preference, this pilot study will gain statistically significant data with a very limited sample size. Our RCT will investigate acceptance, safety, effectiveness, and efficacy of this novel medical device while gathering information on the clinical course and outcome of conservatively treated fingertip injuries. A total of 22 patients older than 2 years will be randomly assigned to start the conservative treatment with either the traditional film-dressing or the novel finger cap. The treatment will be changed to the other alternative for another 2 weeks before the patient or the guardian is confronted with the decision of which method they would prefer for the rest of the treatment (if required). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval (EK 148042015) of the study protocol has been obtained from Institutional Review Board at the TU Dresden. The trial is registered at the European Database on Medical Devices (EUDAMED-No.: CIV-15-03-013246) and at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03089060).
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 | 0.027 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.124 | 0.020 |
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".