Efficacy of bioabsorbable dressing combined with antibacterial spray for treatment of third-degree burns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of a bioabsorbable dressing in combination with antibacterial spray in treating third-degree burns. METHOD: Patients with third-degree burns in our hospital from February 2019 to February 2020 were enrolled and divided into an experimental group and a control group. In all patients, two wound repair surgeries were performed. During the first surgery, bioabsorbable dressing (PELNAC, Gunze Medical Equipment (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., China) was used for wound treatment. During the second surgery, autologous split-thickness skin graft was performed. For patients in the experimental group, bioabsorbable dressings (PELNAC) were uniformly applied with antibacterial spray during the operation and during postoperative dressing. For patients in the control group, antibacterial spray was not used. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients took part in the study (experimental group n=36; control group n=32). Infection rate in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group (2.8% versus 21.9%, respectively; p<0.05). The mean wound healing time in the experimental group was shorter by 3.2 days and the wound healing rate of the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (p<0.05). Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores at specific postoperative time intervals were significantly reduced in the experimental group compared with those in the control group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Bioabsorbable dressing combined with antibacterial spray could reduce infection rate, shorten wound healing time and reduce scar formation in repairing third-degree 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".