Trial reportInternational wound journal2024
Comparative study of optimal compression pressure between conventional Barton's dressing and prefabricate garment in parotidectomy patients.
Trial report in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Comparative study of optimal compression pressure between conventional Barton's dressing and prefabricate garment in parotidectomy patients.International wound journal · 2024Trial
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
Abstract
Excessive compression after parotidectomy can lead to flap necrosis, while inadequate pressure can cause fluid accumulation. This study aimed to determine the optimal pressure and compression properties of different types of dressings. Initially, pressure measurements were taken for conventional Barton's dressing and a pre-fabricated facial garment. In the subsequent phase, patients were randomly assigned to receive one of three types of pressure dressings: conforming bandage Barton's dressing, elastic bandage Barton's dressing or pre-fabricated facial garment. The dressing types were randomly crossed over the following day. The mean pressure exerted by conventional Barton's dressing and the pre-fabricated facial garment was 15.86 and 14.81 mmHg, respectively. There was no significant difference in the proportion of optimal pressure among the three types of pressure dressing (p-values of 0.195, 0.555 and 0.089 at pre-auricular, angle of mandible and post-auricular sites, respectively). The pre-auricular area demonstrated the highest proportion of optimal pressure, while suboptimal pressure was noted at the angle of the mandible and post-auricular area. Dressing types had no effect on pressure stability (p = 0.37), and there was no significant difference in patient preference (p = 0.91). Conforming bandage Barton's dressing, elastic bandage Barton's dressing and pre-fabricated facial garment exhibit comparable compressive properties, with no significant difference in patient preference and pressure stability.
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.