MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3151909873 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irab032.001

T2 One Year Follow up Results of the DETECT Enzymatic Debridement Multicenter RCT

2021· article· en· W3151909873 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William L. Hickerson, Jeremy Goverman, Sigrid A Blome-Eberwein, Adam J. Singer, Lucy Wibbenmeyer, Nicholas Meyer, Joshua Carson, James Gallagher, Steven A. Kahn, Dhaval Bhavsar, D.W. Mozingo, Tam N. Pham, Nicole S. Gibran, Jeffrey W. Shupp, Kevin N Foster, Giavonni Lewis, Julie Caffrey, Yaron Shoham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCosmesisPlaceboRandomized controlled trialRandomizationQuality of life (healthcare)SurgeryVisual analogue scaleClinical endpoint

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Bromelain Based Debridement (BBD) of deep thermal burns has been approved for use in Europe, Argentina, Russia, South Korea, Peru, and Israel, and is an investigational product in the United States. Topline results of acute stage endpoints of the DETECT Phase 3 multicenter RCT have been reported previously. The aim of this abstract is to present the 12-month follow-up of predefined endpoints of scar quality, function and quality of life (QoL). Methods One-hundred and seventy-five adult patients with deep burns were randomized in a Phase 3 clinical trial to one of 3 treatment arms – BBD, Standard of Care (SOC), or Gel vehicle (placebo control) in a 3:3:1 ratio (75 BBD, 75 SOC, and 25 Gel). Scar quality (cosmesis) and function data were analyzed for longer-term data collected at 3, 6, 12 (and 24 - data not yet final) months. Cosmesis and function were measured using Modified Vancouver Scar Scale (MVSS) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to demonstrate that BBD treatment was non-inferior to SOC treatment, as measured at 12 months from wound closure date, evaluated by assessors blinded to the treatment arm. QoL was measured by the EQ-5D (EuroQol 5 Dimensions), VAS (Visual Analog Scale) and BSHS-B (Burn Specific Health Scale – Brief) scales. Missing values were imputed in the analysis using multiple imputation, with best case-worst case imputations as sensitivity analyses. Results The 12-month follow-up mean MVSS scores were lower (better) for the BBD group (3.70±2.10) than for the SOC (5.08±3.11) and Gel groups (5.63±2.99). A regression analysis showed that BBD has a 1.36 MVSS point advantage over SOC after adjustment for all other variables in the model (p-value = 0.0027). The 95% CI for this treatment effect was -2.24 to -0.48, excluding the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of +1.9 points, thus establishing non-inferiority of BBD treatment compared with SOC. Note that the interval also excludes 0, indicating superiority of BBD over SOC. The 3- and 6-month follow-up MVSS scores are also lower for the BBD group (5.51±3.09, 4.43±2.59) than for the SOC (6.63±3.44, 5.43±3.75) and Gel (7.56±2.67, 8.89±3.37) groups. POSAS total scores followed similar trends to MVSS scores but did not reach statistical significance at 12 months. QOL was generally similar among the treatment arms. Conclusions In addition to the significant acute stage results presented previously, the long-term results of this RCT further demonstrate the safety of BBD treatment, including significantly better 12-month follow-up MVSS scores.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.009
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207