Global variation in skin injures and skincare practices in extremely preterm infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, are skincare practices and skin injuries in extremely preterm infants comparable? This study describes skin injuries, variation in skincare practices and investigates any association between them. METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted between February 2019 and August 2021. Quantifying skin injuries and describing skincare practices in extremely preterm infants were the main outcomes. The association between skin injuries and skincare practices was established using binary multivariable logistic regression adjusted for regions. RESULTS: Responses from 848 neonatal intensive care units, representing all geographic regions and income status groups were received. Diaper dermatitis (331/840, 39%) and medical adhesive-related skin injuries (319/838, 38%) were the most common injuries. Following a local skincare guideline reduced skin injuries [medical adhesive-related injuries: adjusted odds ratios (aOR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.45-0.88; perineal injuries: aOR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.45-0.96; local skin infections: OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.26-0.65; chemical burns: OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.26-0.83; thermal burns: OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.27-0.96]. Performing skin assessments at least every four hours reduced skin injuries (abrasion: aOR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.33-0.67; pressure: aOR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.34-0.78; diaper dermatitis: aOR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.51-0.99; perineal: aOR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36-0.75). Regional and resource settings-based variations in skin injuries and skincare practices were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Skin injuries were common in extremely preterm infants. Consistency in practice and improved surveillance appears to reduce the occurrence of these injuries. Better evidence regarding optimal practices is needed to reduce skin injuries and minimize practice variations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".