Effect of hypericum perforatum cream on perineal wound healing in primiparous women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Episiotomy is the most common surgery in obstetrics that like any other wound can cause infection or delay in wound healing. Hypericum perforatum has antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory and wound healing properties. Therefore, this study was performed with aim to determine the effects of Hypericum perforatum on episiotomy wound healing in primiparous women. Methods: This double blind randomized clinical trial was performed on 100 eligible women referred to Shahid Noorani hospital of Talesh in 2014. The subjects were randomly allocated into two groups of Hypericum cream (group A) and placebo (group B). After delivery, two groups used 2 cm Hypericum or placebo cream at scar site twice a day for 10 days. Wound healing was measured before the intervention, first 12 hours and 5 and 10 days after delivery by RIDDA scale. Data were analyzed by SPSS software (version 19) and Mann-Whitney and independent t test. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant Results: The mean of wound healing score before the intervention was not significant in two groups (p>0.05). The mean of RIDDA score significantly decreased at 12 hours and 5 days and 10 days after delivery in hypericum perforatum cream group (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Hypericum perforatum cream is effective on perineal wound healing.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".