MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289132279 · doi:10.1155/2022/1019829

Therapeutic Effect of Ultrasound-Guided Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Combined with Predictive Nursing in Patients with Large-Area Severe Burns

2022· article· en· W4289132279 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Baiyan He, Aiqiong Zhang, Shuting He

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnxietyNursingPeripherally inserted central catheterDepression (economics)CatheterIncidence (geometry)SurgeryAnesthesiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was aimed to explore the application value of ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) combined with predictive nursing in the treatment of large-area severe burns. 88 patients with large-area severe burns who visited hospital were chosen as the research objects. They were randomly divided into the observation group and the control group, with 44 cases in each. The patients in the observation group were treated with ultrasound-guided PICC combined with predictive nursing, while those in the control group were treated with traditional PICC and nursing methods. Then, the anxiety of patients was compared between groups by the Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), while the depression was compared by the Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS). The pain of the patients was analyzed by the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and a self-made nursing satisfaction questionnaire was adopted to evaluate the nursing satisfaction. The surgery-related indicators of the patients were detected and recorded (the success rate of one-time puncture, the success rate of one-time catheter placement, incidence of complications, heart rate, blood pressure, etc.). The success rates of one-time puncture (93% vs. 86%) and of catheter placement (95% vs. 81%) in the observation group were significantly higher than those in the control group, <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>P</a:mi> <a:mo>&lt;</a:mo> <a:mn>0.05</a:mn> </a:math> . The pain scores of the observation group were much lower than those of the control group at each time period, <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>P</c:mi> <c:mo>&lt;</c:mo> <c:mn>0.05</c:mn> </c:math> . The number of patients with negative emotions such as anxiety and depression in the observation group was markedly less than that in the control group. The incidence of complications in the observation group was notably lower than that in the control group (4.5% vs 18%), <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>P</e:mi> <e:mo>&lt;</e:mo> <e:mn>0.05</e:mn> </e:math> . The nursing satisfaction of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group (93% vs 79.5%), <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mi>P</g:mi> <g:mo>&lt;</g:mo> <g:mn>0.05</g:mn> </g:math> . In conclusion, ultrasound-guided PICC and predictive nursing had high clinical application values in the treatment of patients with large-area severe burns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational and Mathematical Methods in MedicineSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207