MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7055556567

A comparison between the effectiveness of lycra and silon pressure garments for treatment of hypertrophic scar in burns

2011· dissertation· en· W7055556567 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversiti Sains Malaysia Institutional Repository (Universiti Sains Malaysia) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypertrophic scarHypertrophic scarsSignificant differenceScarsSiliconeRepeated measures designProspective cohort study
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Hypertrophic scarring after burns remains a major challenge for burn care providers. Pressure garments and silicone sheets have been the mainstay of hypertrophic scar treatment. This study was to compare the effectiveness of the traditional Lycra pressure garment and the silicone incorporated pressure garment (Silon) and also to determine patients’ satisfaction with pressure garment among burns patients in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia. Methodology This is was a two-phased study. Phase I was a retrospective study, which involved patients who were treated with the Lycra pressure garments from June 2007 until Jun 2009. Meanwhile, phase II was a prospective study, involving patients who were treated with the Silon pressure garments from June 2008 until June 2010. Demographic details collected included age, type and depth of burn, total burn surface area (TBSA) and cause of injury. The effectiveness of the treatment was determined based on the Vancouver Scar Scale score. Patients’ scars were assessed 2 weeks after complete wound healing, and every 4 months, for up to 1 year. Results Repeated measures ANOVA showed significant improvement in terms of scar vascularity, itch and pain within each study group (p < 0.05). However, there was no statistical difference between the two pressure garment groups (p > 0.05). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference within and between the 2 study groups in terms of scar height, pigmentation and pliability. Majority of the patient complained of itch, sweating, discomfort and tightness upon wearing the pressure garments. In addition to interfering with their daily activities, they also reported no improvement of their scar appearance. Nevertheless, they still believe that compliance with the treatment is of great importance in order to gain optimal result. Conclusion We cannot conclude that the combined pressure garment and silicone therapy (Silon) was more effective than the traditional pressure garment (Lycra). Hypertrophic scars following burns injuries can take up to 2 years to reach maturity. Thus, it is recommended that scars should be monitored and pressure garment treatment should be carried out for at least 2 years.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversiti Sains Malaysia Institutional Repository (Universiti Sains Malaysia)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207