A Pilot Retrospective Study to Evaluate Two Multi-Layer Foam Dressings for the Management of Moderately Exudative Pressure Injuries.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prevention and treatment of pressure injuries (PI) is a standard benchmark for quality of care, performance, risk reduction, and patient safety. Foam dressings are designed to wick away a large volume of exudate with minimal lateral movement to prevent periwound skin maceration; this renders foam dressings a popular choice for the treatment of chronic wounds with high to moderate amounts of exudate. In addition, multi-layer foam dressings may have added benefits to alleviate pressure and minimize shear as the dressing materials slide against each other. The purpose of this retrospective pilot study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two different multi-layer foam dressings (Optifoam® Gentle, Medline Industries, Inc. Northfield, Illinois; Mepilex® Border, Mölnlycke Health Care, Gothenburg, Sweden) for the management of pressure injuries that produce a moderate amount of exudate. A total of 15 patients and 25 wound treatments were reviewed over a period of 12 months in the study. The difference in the mean surface areas at baseline between the two dressings was not statistically significant (p=.38). All wounds improved over time. There was no difference in healing rate (cm2/day) for wounds that were treated with the Mepilex® Border dressing (M=.12 cm2/day, SD=.19) compared to the Optifoam® Gentle dressing (M=.18 cm2/day; SD=.25); t (23)= .85, p=.40. Findings of this study suggest similar clinical performance between the two foam dressings. Foam dressings were used for the management of several shallow stage 3 and 4 PIs in place of packing. Results of this study challenge the commonly accepted notion that wounds with depth should always be packed with dressing material.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".