ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2020
Does the application of Opsite
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA proportion of people who have been diagnosed with peripheral arterial disease and diabetes mellitus will be susceptible to chronic wounds. Oxygen is vital for wound healing, so oxygen measurements should to be taken as predictive values for wound healing in patients. When measuring oxygen at the wound bed, there is potentially a risk of cross-infection if no protective barrier is used; and skin stripping if an adhesive barrier is used on the wound bed. This cross sectional within subject repeated measures pilot study, aims to determine if the application of opsite film, as an infection control measure, in one or two layers, impacts on tissue oxygenation readings obtained when using the MoorVMS-OXY.
methodsMean oxygen saturation percentages were measured from 29 limbs of 18 healthy participants. Oxygen saturation was measured for 20 s and analysed at the first metatarsophalangeal joint using no film, one and two layers using the MoorVMS-OXY. A one-way repeated ANOVA with a Bonferroni post hoc test was performed to test for statistically significant differences between the values of the three parameters and multiple pairwise comparisons was completed.
resultsAmongst the three layers, there was a statistically significant difference in oxygen saturation between the two layers of Opsite Flexigrid and none; and also between the two layers of Flexigrid and single layer (p < 0.05). It was also established that there was no statistically significant difference between the single layer of Opsite Flexigrid and no Flexigrid layer (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe results imply that one layer of Opsite Flexigrid is a suitable protective barrier to use when establishing capillary bed oxygen perfusion with the MoorVMS-OXY. However, the application of two Opsite Flexigrid layers, to prevent skin stripping, decreases the recorded values of oxygen saturation percentages significantly, therefore providing inaccurate results. Indicating that a double layer cannot be used over ulceration sites if measuring oxygen levels at the wound bed.
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.