ReviewRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2017
Development and validation of an algorithm for laser application in wound treatment.
Review in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of a Nursing Care Protocol for Laser Therapy in Pressure Injuries: Methodological Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Elaboration and validation of an algorithm for treating peripheral intravenous infiltration and extravasation in children.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2021Review
- Effects of an Algorithm-based Education Program on Nursing Care for Children with Epilepsy by Hospital Nurses.Child health nursing research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate an algorithm for laser wound therapy.
methodMethodological study and literature review. For the development of the algorithm, a review was performed in the Health Sciences databases of the past ten years. The algorithm evaluation was performed by 24 participants, nurses, physiotherapists, and physicians. For data analysis, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient and the chi-square test for independence was used. The level of significance of the statistical test was established at 5% (p<0.05).
resultsThe professionals' responses regarding the facility to read the algorithm indicated: 41.70%, great; 41.70%, good; 16.70%, regular. With regard the algorithm being sufficient for supporting decisions related to wound evaluation and wound cleaning, 87.5% said yes to both questions. Regarding the participants' opinion that the algorithm contained enough information to support their decision regarding the choice of laser parameters, 91.7% said yes. The questionnaire presented reliability using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient test (α = 0.962).
conclusionThe developed and validated algorithm showed reliability for evaluation, wound cleaning, and use of laser therapy in wounds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.