MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404992124 · doi:10.12968/jowc.2024.0334

Effect of ceramic dressings and silver-impregnated dressings on bacterial load and wound closure: a comparative study

2024· article· en· W4404992124 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Febe Bruwer, Rene Lessing

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wound Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWound healingClearanceWound careAntimicrobialSurgeryOcclusive dressingDentistryBacterial colonyClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialPathologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wound healing is a series of complex and dynamic processes which occur in several stages. Optimal wound healing is essential for restoring the integrity and function of the affected area. Although medicated wound dressings have been extensively employed to control wound infection, the risks associated with antimicrobials make the use of non-medicated alternatives necessary. Nevertheless, the relationship between the concentrations of medicated wound dressings and their antimicrobial activities, along with their wound healing efficacies, still remains unclear. Non-medicated wound dressings are an alternative to dressings that contain active ingredients acting as antimicrobials or antiseptics. In the present study, the researchers examined the reduction of bacterial load as the primary endpoint and the healing rate as the secondary endpoint, comparing microporous ceramic dressings to silver-impregnated dressings in participants from two outpatient wound management clinics. The study included 25 participants in the silver-impregnated dressing (control) group and 28 participants in the ceramic dressing (study) group. The participants' wounds were assessed through MolecuLight i:X (MolecuLight Inc., Canada) wound tracing and MolecuLight i:X fluorescence imaging to measure the wound size, as well as presence of a bacterial load of >10 4 colony forming units/g at weeks 1, 2, 3 and 4. The results indicated that there was a significant difference in the distribution over the categories of bacterial load cleared after weeks 1, 2, 3 or 4 in the two groups. Moreover, the bacterial load cleared significantly faster in the study group (p=0.001). Mean wound size was 10.93cm 2 (range: 0.10–37.95cm 2 ) in the control group and 11.48cm 2 (range: 0.80–60cm 2 ) in the study group. In the maximum likelihood regression analysis, the mean reduction in wound area for the study group was greater than that for the control group. The study concluded that the ceramic dressings could be an effective alternative to silver-impregnated dressings when treating infected wounds.

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)0.000
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 score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wound CareSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207