ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021
Comparing the Interface pressure distribution of the full body chest-lumbar cushion made of memory cotton with the traditional chest cushion.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. 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, 1 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPressure injuries are common complications occurred duration hospitalization, whether the interface pressure distribution in full body memory cotton chest-lumbar cushion was superior than traditional chest cushion remains unclear. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the effects that the full body memory cotton chest-lumbar cushion versus traditional chest cushion on interface pressure.
methodsA total of 66 healthy individuals were recruited. The volunteers were placed in the left lateral position and left armpit and iliac spine pressure and level of comfort were measured. Group differences were assessed using the paired t-test or Wilcoxon test according to data distribution. Additionally, multivariate regression analysis was applied to determine the potential role of sex, age, and body mass index on left armpit and iliac spine pressure and overall comfort.
resultsCompared with the traditional chest cushion, we noted that the full body chest-lumbar cushion made of memory cotton was associated with less pressure on the left armpit (38.17 ± 10.39 mmHg vs. 67.93 ± 14.67 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.0001) and iliac spine (43.32 ± 13.70 mmHg vs. 50.77 ± 20.94 mmHg, respectively; P = 0.0004). Moreover, we noted that the overall comfort with the memory cotton chest-lumbar cushion was higher than that with the traditional chest cushion (8.48 ± 1.08 vs. 6.36 ± 1.45, respectively; P < 0.0001). Finally, the multivariate regression analyses found iliac spine pressure could affect by sex (P = 0.0377) and body mass index (P = 0.0380).
conclusionsThe full body chest-lumbar cushion made of memory cotton had beneficial effects on left armpit and iliac spine pressure and on comfort. These findings should be applied to future clinical practice.
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.