The impact of decongestive physical therapy and elastic bandaging on the control of pain in patients with venous ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to evaluate pain in individuals with venous ulcers treated with elastic bandage and decongestant physical therapy. METHODS: we studied 90 patients, divided into three groups with 30 patients each: a group treated with elastic bandage and decongestant physical therapy; a group treated with elastic bandage; and a group treated only with primary dressing according to tissue type and presence of exudate. We used the Pain Numerical Scale to quantify pain intensity and the McGill Pain Questionnaire for pain qualitative assessment. RESULTS: in the first evaluation, all patients who participated in the study reported intense pain. In the fifth evaluation, the majority of patients treated with elastic bandaging and decongestant physical therapy did not report pain; the majority of patients in the elastic bandage group reported mild pain; and most patients treated only with primary dressing reported mild to moderate pain. During all five assessments using the McGill questionnaire, most patients in the elastic bandaging and primary dressing groups used descriptors of the sensory, affective, evaluative and miscellaneous groups to describe their pain. However, in the fourth and fifth evaluations, most patients who received decongestant physical therapy combined with elastic bandaging treatment did not use any of the descriptors. CONCLUSION: patients treated with decongestant physical therapy and elastic bandage presented pain improvement from the third evaluation performed on.
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".