Observational studyBMC surgery2022
Implementation of multi-mode nursing insulation program for patients receiving surgery for spine tumor: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Observational study in BMC surgery, 2022. 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.
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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpinal tumor surgery usually involved long operation time, large area of soft tissue resection and long wound, and was prone to hypothermia during the operation. Therefore, actively promoting insulation and optimizing the intraoperative insulation program have great potential in reducing the incidence of hypothermia and reducing the incidence of postoperative complications. In this study, we compared patients who did not implement multi-mode nursing insulation program (MNIP) with those who implemented MNIP, observing and comparing clinical outcomes, and complications in both groups, with the aim of developing an optimal management plan for the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods, respectively.
methodsWe selected 2 periods of 1 year, before (n = 120 patients) and after MINP implementation (n = 120 patients). Data were collected on patient demographics, operative, perioperative details, temperature changes, anesthesia recovery effect, incidence of postoperative wound infection, length of hospital stay and complications. PS analyses were used for dealing with confounding bias in this retrospective observational study.
resultsAfter PS matching, the outcomes of 120 well-balanced pairs of patients were compared (No-MNIP vs MNIP). There was no significant difference concerning the satisfaction survey. The results indicated that the MNIP had better insulation effect at 90 min, 120 min, 150 min after anesthesia induction and after surgery. There were 16 cases of complications in the No-MNIP group and 5 cases in the MNIP group postoperative, which have significant statistical difference.
conclusionIn this study, the incidence of intraoperative hypothermia was effectively reduced by adopting the multi-mode insulation scheme, thus reducing the incidence of incision infection and shortening the length of hospital stay of patients.
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.