ArticleAfrican health sciences2024
Evaluation of the effect of a novel nursing intervention in the treatment of vacuum sealing drainage in patients with chronic orthopedic wounds.
Article in African health sciences, 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.
- Editor's choice: Infections, sexual reproductive health and non-communicable diseases.African health sciences · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To explore the application effect of "4+1" nursing intervention in the treatment of chronic orthopaedic trauma with negative pressure vacuum sealing drainage. Methodology: Patients before the implementation of the "4+1 nursing intervention" program were selected as the control group (60 cases). 60 patients after the implementation of the "4+1 nursing intervention" program were selected as the research group. Control group was given routine care. Research group adopted the "4+1" nursing intervention. Hamilton Depression score, wound healing time, pain visual analogue scale, treatment compliance, Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, and nursing satisfaction were compared between the two groups. Results: After the intervention, the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and Hamilton Depression scores in the study group were lower than those in the control group; visual analogue scale on the 3rd and 5th days after the study were lower than those in the control group, and the wound healing time was shorter than that in the control group. The treatment compliance rate and nursing satisfaction of the study group were higher than those of the control group (P<0.05). Conclusion: The application of "4 + 1" nursing intervention in treatment of orthopaedic chronic wounds has a good effect.
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.