The Effect of Padded Adhesive Dressing and Static Body Position on Sacral Interface Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Padded adhesive bandages are frequently used in the inpatient setting for sacral pressure injury prevention, but it is unclear whether they truly decrease interface pressure. We hypothesized such devices reduce sacral peak interface pressure in the supine position, which would be further reduced in 30-degree reclined and upright seated positions. METHODS: Study participants rested with their sacrum on a pressure-sensing mat, in 3 positions, for 30 seconds each: (1) sitting upright; (2) supine; and (3) supine against 30-degree wedge. Measurements were made with and without a padded adhesive bandage overlying the sacrum. Age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) were collected. These variables were entered sequentially, in an a priori order to construct a linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Forty healthy adults participated. After controlling for by-subject variation, age, and sex, BMI did not influence peak sacral pressure (P = 0.22), although the effect of body position was significant (P < 0.01). Subsequent addition of padded adhesive dressing was nonsignificant (P = 0.17); sacral peak pressure was similar with a padded adhesive dressing (247.8 ± 147.3 mm Hg) or without (mean ± standard deviation = 229.8 ± 127.7 mm Hg). Lastly, there was no significant interaction between BMI and body position (P = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Padded adhesive bandages did not reduce interface pressure in any position. Sacral pressure was highest in the supine position and was not specifically affected by BMI. If padded bandages provide clinically significant reduction in pressure injury incidence, it is not simply through the reduction of interface pressure.
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 | 0.001 | 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".