Impact of non-adherent Ibuprofen foam dressing in the lives of patients with venous ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective : to evaluate pain in patients with lower limb venous ulcer who used non-adherent Ibuprofen foam dressing (IFD). Methods : we conducted a prospective study of patients with lower limb venous ulcers treated from April 2013 to August 2014. We used the Numerical Scale and McGill Pain Questionnaire, performing the assessments at the moment of inclusion of the patient in the study and every eight days thereafter, totaling five consultations. We divided the patients into two groups: 40 in the Study Group (SG), who were treated with IFD, and 40 in the Control Group (CG), treated with primary dressing, according to tissue type and exudate. Results : at the first consultation, patients from both groups reported intense pain. On the fifth day, SG patients reported no pain and the majority of CG reported moderate pain. Regarding the McGill Pain Questionnaire, most patients of both groups reported sensations related to sensory, affective, evaluative and miscellaneous descriptors at the beginning of data collection; after the second assessment, there was slight improvement among the patients in the SG. After the third consultation, they no longer reported the mentioned descriptors. CG patients displayed all the sensations of these descriptors until the fifth visit. Conclusion : non-adherent Ibuprofen foam dressing is effective in reducing the pain of patients with venous ulcers.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.128 | 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".