A Prospective Non-Inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Effectiveness of a Five-Layer Polyurethane Foam Dressing for Wound Healing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine wound healing of acute and chronic wounds by comparing two five-layer polyurethane foam dressings. Objectives: 1) Compare the changes in surface area for wounds treated with two different five-layer polyurethane foam dressings. 2) Compare the characteristics of wounds treated with two different types of five-layer polyurethane foam dressings. Methods: A non-inferiority, pragmatic, open-label randomized controlled trial was conducted to explore the hypothesis that one five-layer foam dressing (Optifoam® Adhesive) is no less effective than another five-layer foam dressing (Mepilex® Border). Changes in wound surface area and in wound characteristics were assessed weekly for up to four weeks by calculating the decrease in wound surface area and completing a wound assessment tool. Results: An initial sample size of 50 was calculated. Over an eight-month period, 18 participants were recruited from three different sites. Wounds in the Optifoam® group had a statistically significant faster decrease in wound surface area than wounds in the Mepilex® group: 0.96 cm2 per day compared to 0.26 cm2 per day (p = 0.004). The mean BWAT score for participants in the Mepilex® group was 24.1 (SD 6.6) and 24.5 (SD 6.1) in the Optifoam® group. This difference was within the non-inferiority limit that was set a priori. There were 18 participants enrolled in the study, only 5 participants completed all four weeks of the study. Due to the recruitment and retention issues, feasibility issues of conducting this research were also addressed. Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, Optifoam® is not inferior to Mepilex® Border. More research is needed with adequate sample size to support these results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".