Observational studyComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2021
Application of Self-Adhesive Soft Silicone Common Foam Dressing in Reducing Intraoperative Pressure Ulcers in Elderly ICU Patients.
Observational study in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Retracted: Application of Self-Adhesive Soft Silicone Common Foam Dressing in Reducing Intraoperative Pressure Ulcers in Elderly ICU Patients.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-07-19Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Informed/Patient Consent - None/Withdrawn · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Lack of IRB/IACUC Approval and/or Compliance · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pressure ulcer (PU), also called pressure injury, is localized damage to the skin and underlying soft tissues, usually over bony prominences, as a result of sustained mechanical loads applied to the tissues. However, in many situations, complete off-loading of sacral PUs is not possible. Minimising the exposure of wounds and their surroundings to elevated mechanical loads is crucial for healing. We for the first time reported the application of Meipicang in the prevention and treatment of intraoperative pressure ulcers in elderly ICU patients with severe illness. We found that the pressure ulcer risk score (20.15 ± 2.17) in the dressing group after intervention was higher than that (17.42 ± 3.62) in the regular group. The incidence of pressure sores in the dressing group was 3.77% lower than the 18.88% in the regular group. The psychological concern score (31.41 ± 3.15) of the dressing group was higher than that (26.92 ± 3.43) of the regular group. The trust score (29.57 ± 2.61) of the dressing group was higher than the score (24.28 ± 2.29) of the regular group. The score of physiological problems in the dressing group (34.69 ± 3.82) is higher than that in the regular group (29.88 ± 3.54). The skin complication rate of the dressing group was 5.56% lower than that of the regular group (22.64%). The comfort score (92.46 ± 4.15) of the dressing group was higher than that (80.59 ± 5.43) of the regular group. The nursing satisfaction score (94.53 ± 3.72) of the dressing group was higher than that (81.79 ± 4.61) of the regular group. To conclude, in this study, we found that the Meipicang dressing can reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in ICU patients with severe ICU and improve the comfort and nursing satisfaction of elderly ICU patients with severe ICU, which is worthy of promotion.
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.