MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408056000 · doi:10.4103/nah.nah_134_24

Effects of Nighttime Noise Reduction by Using Earplugs on the Recovery of Burn Patients after Reconstructive Surgery

2025· article· en· W4408056000 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Weixin Chen, Ke Li, Yuan Shi, Wenjun He, Yang Sun, Jianjiang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueNoise and Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMusic Therapy and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReconstructive surgerySurgeryQuality of life (healthcare)Depression (economics)Burn woundIncidence (geometry)Rating scaleRetrospective cohort studyReduction (mathematics)Burn injuryAnesthesiaWound healingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the effects of postoperative noise reduction by using earplugs at night on the healing time and scar quality of burn patients who underwent reconstructive surgery. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed the clinical data of adult burn patients after they underwent reconstructive surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from January 2022 to June 2023. The patients were divided into the postoperative noise reduction group (n = 66) and the control group (n = 75) based on whether they received postoperative noise reduction. The control group received standard humanized clinical care, while the postoperative noise reduction group received additional noise-reducing care by using earplugs at night. The effects of postoperative noise reduction on wound healing time, scar quality (Vancouver Scar Scale [VSS]), psychological state (Self-rating Anxiety Scale [SAS] and Self-rating Depression Scale [SDS]), quality of life (Abbreviated Burn Specific Health Scale [BSHS-A]) and incidence of complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the postoperative noise reduction group demonstrated significant differences in wound healing time (P < 0.001), VSS scores (P = 0.003), SAS scores (P = 0.005), SDS scores (P = 0.003), and BSHS-A scores (P < 0.05). No significant difference was found in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study provides substantive evidence that postoperative noise reduction positively influences wound healing time, scar quality, quality of life, and psychological state in burn patients after reconstructive surgery. Such insight emphasized the importance of creating a healing-conducive hospital environment for burn patients, integrating noise reduction strategies as a part of holistic nursing practices to optimize recovery outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNoise and HealthSame topicMusic Therapy and HealthFrench-language works237,207