A Randomized Controlled Trial Determining Variances in Ostomy Skin Conditions and the Economic Impact (ADVOCATE Trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare ostomy-related costs and incidence of peristomal skin complications (PSCs) for ceramide-infused ostomy skin barriers and control skin barriers. DESIGN: The ADVOCATE trial is a multi-centered randomized controlled trial, and double-blinded international study with an adaptive design. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The sample comprised 153 adults from 25 sites from the United States, Canada, and Europe. Participants were seen in hospital and outpatient care settings. METHODS: Data were collected by investigators at each site during face-to-face visits and during telephone check-in calls between visits. Cost of care data were collected using a questionnaire developed specifically for the study. The peristomal skin was assessed using the Ostomy Skin Tool. Health-related quality of life was measured using the SF-12v2. Patient-reported outcomes were collected using a patient-centered study-specific questionnaire. Cost of care was analyzed via analysis of covariance comparing total cost of care for 12 weeks between the 2 groups. The incidence of PSC was analyzed via Barnard's exact test comparing the incidence of PSCs between the control and treatment groups. Tertiary outcomes were exploratory in nature and not statistically powered. RESULTS: Use of the ceramide-infused barrier significantly reduced stoma-related cost of care over a 12-week period, resulting in a $36.46 decrease in cost (14% relative decrease). The adjusted average costs were $223.73 in the treatment group and $260.19 in the control group (P = .017). The overall incidence of PSCs in the study was 47.7%; PSC incidence was 40.5% for the treatment group versus 55.4% for controls (P = .069, 95% confidence interval of the difference: -1.2 to 30.4). Significantly more participants using the ceramide-infused skin barrier were "very satisfied" with barrier performance (75% vs 55%; P = .033), prevention of leakage (63% vs 38%; P < .01), and prevention of itching (53% vs 31%; P = .016). General postoperative improvement in health-related quality of life was noted in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a ceramide-infused barrier significantly decreased cost and increased satisfaction with patient-reported 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 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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".