Observational studyInternational wound journal2026
Prediction Model for Skin Damage Related to Medical Adhesives in Adult Patients Undergoing Degenerative Spine Surgery.
Observational study in International wound journal, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to develop a prediction model for the occurrence of medical adhesive-related skin injuries (MARSIs) based on electronic medical records (EMRs) of adult patients who underwent degenerative spine surgery. This study used the EMR data of adult patients who underwent degenerative spine surgery at a university hospital in Seoul between January 2020 and December 2024. Seven machine learning algorithms and the SuperLearner algorithm were used to evaluate the performance of the SuperLearner model. Performance was focused on the area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision and F1 score. Among the machine learning algorithms, the RuleFit algorithm showed the best performance, with an AUC of 0.723, accuracy of 0.689, sensitivity of 0.959, specificity of 0.276, precision of 0.762 and F1 score of 0.789. In contrast, predicting MARSI using the SuperLearner algorithm had an AUC of 0.951, accuracy of 0.834, sensitivity of 0.635, specificity of 0.964, precision of 0.921 and F1 score of 0.752. This study provides practical evidence for the early identification of high-risk patients and establishment of customized nursing plans by presenting a MARSI prediction model using the SuperLearner ensemble. Future research is recommended to verify the external validity of the model through prospective studies and integration of clinical decision support systems. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier KCT0010601.
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.