Effect of applying saline spray on nasal health status of critically ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: A fundamental aspect of hygienic care in ICU is nasal care. However, providing nasal care for critically ill patients is challenging because of caring for very sick patients in a highly stressful environment results in nasal care having a lower priority for nurses than other aspects of care. This study was conducted to investigate the effect of applying saline spray on nasal health status of critically ill patients.Methods: This study was carried out in intensive care units at Emergency Hospital. Sixty patients were enrolled and divided into a study group who received saline nasal spray three times daily for seven days and a control group who received routine hospital care. Secretion load and nasal cultures were assessed before and on the 7th day of nasal care.Results: No significance difference was found between control and study groups as regards to secretion score before nasal care. On the 7th day, there was a statistically significant deterioration of the secretion score by increasing to 3 (p < .001) in the control group. However, a significant improvement was noted in the study group in comparison to the control group (p < .001). In addition, about half of the control group had proliferated Klebsiella in the first culture which continued to the second culture on the 7th day of routine nasal care while no one had proliferated Klebsiella in the studied sample following administration of normal saline spray which was highly statistically significant. Conclusions: The use of saline nasal spray is more effective than routine nasal care in reducing colonization with different bacterial species and improving secretion score.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".