Promoting and Maintaining Skin Integrity in End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review recommendations for promoting and maintaining skin integrity in end-of-life care and their level of evidence. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (PubMed interface), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were systematically searched using a combination of key terms including end-of-life care , skin care , skin hygiene , and skin cleansing . STUDY SELECTION: Articles were included if they (1) described skin care recommendations, including but not limited to the use of skin care products and interventions such as cleansing procedures; and (2) included adult patients who were expected to die within 12 months. There were no restrictions on study design, study setting, or language. Articles with a publication date before 2000 were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Two data extraction forms were developed. The first included information about the author, publication year, type of evidence, study topic, sample, sample size, setting, limitations of the study, level of evidence, and quality of the study. The second included recommendations for promoting and maintaining skin integrity in patients at the end of life. DATA SYNTHESIS: Because of methodological heterogeneity, results were synthesized narratively, and no meta-analysis was performed. CONCLUSIONS: The information contained in the recommendations will assist nurses in promoting and maintaining skin integrity in patients at the end of life. More research is needed on end-of-life skin care, with an emphasis on patient-centered, holistic strategies that improve patient well-being and quality of life. In most current research, recommendations are limited to literature reviews and level V evidence. Skin care must balance the promotion and maintenance of skin integrity, wound prevention, and management while promoting patient dignity and quality of life.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".