Multidisciplinary discovery of ancient restoration using a rare mud carapace on a mummified individual from late New Kingdom Egypt.

CT scans of an unnamed mummified adult from Egypt, now in the Chau Chak Wing Museum, University of Sydney (NMR.27.3), reveal it to be fully sheathed in a mud shell or carapace, exposing a mortuary treatment not previously documented in the Egyptian archaeological record. The carapace was placed between layers of linen wrappings thus it was not externally visible. Radiocarbon dating of textile samples provide a range of c.1370-1113 cal BC (95.4% probability), with a median date of 1207 cal BC. When assessed against mummification techniques of the era, the individual is placed in the late 19th-20th Dynasty, at the later end of this date range. Multi-proxy analysis including µ-XRF and Raman spectroscopy of carapace fragments from the head area revealed it to consist of three layers, comprising a thin base layer of mud, coated with a white calcite-based pigment and a red-painted surface of mixed composition. Whether the whole surface of the carapace was painted red is unknown. The carapace was a form of ancient conservation applied subsequent to post-mortem damage to the body, intended to reconfigure the body and enable continued existence of the deceased in the afterlife. The carapace can also be interpreted as a form of elite emulation imitating resin shells found within the wrappings of royal bodies from this period.

Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: The millions of peripheral intravenous catheters used each year are recommended for 72-96 h replacement in adults. This routine replacement increases health-care costs and staff workload and requires patients to undergo repeated invasive procedures. The effectiveness of the practice is not well established. Our hypothesis was that clinically indicated catheter replacement is of equal benefit to routine replacement. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, non-blinded equivalence trial recruited adults (≥18 years) with an intravenous catheter of expected use longer than 4 days from three hospitals in Queensland, Australia, between May 20, 2008, and Sept 9, 2009. Computer-generated random assignment (1:1 ratio, no blocking, stratified by hospital, concealed before allocation) was to clinically indicated replacement, or third daily routine replacement. Patients, clinical staff, and research nurses could not be masked after treatment allocation because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was phlebitis during catheterisation or within 48 h after removal. The equivalence margin was set at 3%. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints were catheter-related bloodstream and local infections, all bloodstream infections, catheter tip colonisation, infusion failure, catheter numbers used, therapy duration, mortality, and costs. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12608000445370. FINDINGS: All 3283 patients randomised (5907 catheters) were included in our analysis (1593 clinically indicated; 1690 routine replacement). Mean dwell time for catheters in situ on day 3 was 99 h (SD 54) when replaced as clinically indicated and 70 h (13) when routinely replaced. Phlebitis occurred in 114 of 1593 (7%) patients in the clinically indicated group and in 114 of 1690 (7%) patients in the routine replacement group, an absolute risk difference of 0·41% (95% CI -1·33 to 2·15%), which was within the prespecified 3% equivalence margin. No serious adverse events related to study interventions occurred. INTERPRETATION: Peripheral intravenous catheters can be removed as clinically indicated; this policy will avoid millions of catheter insertions, associated discomfort, and substantial costs in both equipment and staff workload. Ongoing close monitoring should continue with timely treatment cessation and prompt removal for complications. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Pressure ulcers: effectiveness of risk-assessment tools. A randomised controlled trial (the ULCER trial).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of two pressure-ulcer screening tools against clinical judgement in preventing pressure ulcers. DESIGN: A single blind randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A large metropolitan tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 1231 patients admitted to internal medicine or oncology wards. Patients were excluded if their hospital stay was expected to be 2 days or less. INTERVENTIONS: Participants allocated to either a Waterlow (n=410) or Ramstadius (n=411) screening tool group or to a clinical judgement group (n=410) where no formal risk screening instrument was used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence of hospital acquired pressure ulcers ascertained by regular direct observation. Use of any devices for the prevention of pressure ulcers, documentation of a pressure plan and any dietetic or specialist skin integrity review were recorded. RESULTS: On admission, 71 (5.8%) patients had an existing pressure ulcer. The incidence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers was similar between groups (clinical judgement 28/410 (6.8%); Waterlow 31/411 (7.5%); Ramstadius 22/410 (5.4%), p=0.44). Significant associations with pressure injury in regression modelling included requiring a dietetic referral, being admitted from a location other than home and age over 65 years. CONCLUSION: The authors found no evidence to show that two common pressure-ulcer risk-assessment tools are superior to clinical judgement to prevent pressure injury. Resources associated with use of these tools might be better spent on careful daily skin inspection and improving management targetted at specific risks. STUDY REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinicat Trials Registry (ACTRN 12608000541303).