MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294543269 · doi:10.1111/jocn.16508

Topical therapy for pain management in malignant fungating wounds: A scoping review

2022· review· en· W4294543269 on OpenAlexaff
Suzana Aparecida da Costa Ferreira, Carol Viviana Serna González, Magali Thum, Adriane Aparecida da Costa Faresin, Kevin Woo, Vera Lúcia Conceição de Gouveia Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINESystematic reviewCINAHLChecklistCryotherapyPalliative careWound carePsychological interventionIntensive care medicinePhysical therapySurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To map and synthesise the existing literature on topical therapies for malignant fungating wounds pain management and the gaps involved. BACKGROUND: Most cancer patients with malignant fungating wounds suffer from wound-related pain, affecting their quality of life. Unfortunately, even though pain is a relevant symptom in cancer and palliative care, little is currently known about topical treatments' availability and impact on pain management. DESIGN: A scoping review following JBI® methodology METHODS: Searches were performed in CINAHL, LILACS, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, NICE, Scopus, JBISRIR and grey literature, in English, Portuguese and Spanish, with no time limit. Two authors independently reviewed all citations and a third was called in case of divergence, and studies in adults with malignant fungal wounds reporting topical pain interventions were included. In addition, a data extraction tool for synthesis and thematic analysis was developed. This study followed the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. RESULTS: Seventy publications were selected from 796 records retrieved from databases. The studies mainly included non-systematic reviews and case studies with only six clinical trials. According to the narrative synthesis, twenty therapies were identified, including the use of wound dressings (58.6%), analgesic drugs (55.7%), topical antimicrobials (25.7%), skin barriers (15.7%), cryotherapy (5.7%) and negative pressure wound therapy (4.3%). Therapies were recommended to be applied to the wound bed or the periwound skin. In 68.5% of the studies, a standardised assessment for pain was not described. CONCLUSIONS: Topical therapies applied to malignant fungating wounds or periwound areas had been examined for pain management. However, their effectiveness was analysed in a few interventional studies, indicating the need for further primary studies to inform evidence-based practice. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: Highlighted topical therapies for clinical practice consideration are opioids, anaesthetics and antimicrobials, with positive results described in randomised clinical trials. This study did not include patients.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.298
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207