Evaluation of Longitudinal and Tubular Compression Treatment for Lower Limb Edema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients with lower limb edema do not tolerate traditional higher-pressure compression devices and require alternative devices for edema control. METHODS: Two systems were evaluated for control of bilateral or unilateral lower limb edema: an elasticized longitudinal stockinette (ELS; EdemaWear; Compression Dynamics, Omaha, Nebraska) and an elasticized tubular bandage (ETB; Tubigrip; Mölnlycke Health Care, Norcross, Georgia). Twenty-five patients were recruited; patients with bilateral edema (n = 12) wore the ELS on one limb, and the ETB on the other. Patients with unilateral edema (n = 13) were randomized to wear either the ELS or ETB. Edema measurements, leg pain, and patient preference were recorded. RESULTS: There were 14 females (56%) and 11 males (44%); mean age was 66 years (range, 32-88 years); and mean body mass index was 40.4 kg/m (range, 26.1-66.9 kg/m). Patients with bilateral edema wearing ELS had a foot-to-leg circumference between 25.5 and 42.9 cm pre-ELS that remained essentially unchanged at 2 weeks. The five patients with unilateral edema using ELS had a 24.3- to 43.7-cm circumference pre-ELS and 24.2- to 42.6-cm range at 2 weeks. The patients with bilateral edema using ETBs had a foot-to-leg circumference of 25.5 to 43.7 cm before treatment, unchanged 2 weeks later. The eight patients with unilateral edema using ETB had a 25.4- to 45.3-cm circumference pre-ETB and 24.8- to 42.0-cm range post-ETB. Mean pain levels decreased from 1.0 at week 0 to 0.5 at week 2. More patients preferred ELS (17/23, 78.3%) over ETB (5/23, 21.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Both systems were easy to apply and provided low compression without increased pain. The ELS was preferred by more patients (78.3%) than ETB (21.7%).
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".