Effect of a Continuous Bedside Pressure Mapping System for Reducing Interface Pressures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Continuous bedside pressure mapping (CBPM) technology can assist in detecting skin areas with excessive interface pressure and inform efficient patient repositioning to prevent the development of pressure injuries (PI). Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of CBPM technology in reducing interface pressure and the incidence of PIs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group randomized clinical trial was performed at a tertiary acute care center. The study started to enroll participants in December 2014 and was completed in May 2018. Participants included adults partially or completely dependent for bed mobility. Statistical analysis was performed from September 2018 to December 2022. Intervention: Nursing staff using visual feedback from CBPM technology for 72 hours. Main Outcomes and Measures: Absolute number of sensing points with pressure readings greater than 40 mm Hg, mean interface pressure across all sensing points under a patient's body, proportion of participants who had pressure readings greater than 40 mm Hg, and pressure-related skin and soft tissue changes. Results: There were 678 patients recruited. After attrition, 260 allocated to the control group (151 [58.1%] male; mean [SD] age, 61.9 [18.5] years) and 247 in the intervention group (147 [59.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 63.6 [18.1] years) were included in analyses. The absolute number of sensing points with pressures greater than 40 mm Hg were 11 033 in the control group vs 9314 in the intervention group (P = .16). The mean (SD) interface pressure was 6.80 (1.63) mm Hg in the control group vs 6.62 (1.51) mm Hg in the intervention group (P = .18). The proportion of participants who had pressure readings greater than 40 mm Hg was 99.6% in both the control and intervention groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of CBPM technology in the reduction of interface pressure and the incidence of PIs in a tertiary acute care center, no statistically significant benefit was seen for any of the primary outcomes. These results suggest that longer duration of monitoring and adequately powered studies where CBPM feedback is integrated into a multifaceted intervention to prevent PI are needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02325388.
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 | 0.008 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".