Conectar
To evaluate the accuracy of different pressure injury risk assessment tools in paediatrics and identify risk assessment tools with the best predictive performance.
A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Eight electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, Weipu Database, Wanfang Database and Chinese Biomedical Database were comprehensively searched. The study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines 2020. Two researchers independently conducted article screening, data extraction and quality assessment. Statistical analysis was performed using R 4.3.1 and Stata 14.0.
A total of 20 articles were included in this study, involving 4908 patients and 13 pressure injury risk assessment tools for children, of which 15 articles were included in the network meta-analysis. The results showed that the Paediatric Pressure Ulcer Prediction and Evaluation Tool (PPUPET) had the highest superiority index, with the relative sensitivity (0.7, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.0–1.5) and the relative specificity (1.4, 95% CI: 0.7–1.8). The next was Braden-Q combined with the Glamorgan scale, with a superiority index of 7.08, a relative sensitivity of 1.1 (95% CI: 0.5–1.5) and a relative specificity of 1.3 (95% CI: 0.8–1.7).
This study suggested that the PPUPET can comprehensively evaluate medical device-related pressure injuries in children, the Braden-Q scale had a better predictive performance for children aged 21 days–8 years in general paediatric departments, and the Glamorgan scale was suitable in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit.
This review highlights that clinical practitioners should select appropriate assessment tools based on different departments and the age of children to accurately assess the risk of pressure injuries in children.
No Patient or Public Contribution.
PROSPERO CRD42023470769. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.
Caregivers of children with chronic diseases suffer from great parenting pressure, which directly affects the treatment and rehabilitation of children, reduces the quality of life of caregivers and damages family functioning. Existing reviews have not systematically summarized and evaluated interventions for parenting stress in caregivers of children with chronic diseases.
Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, OVID, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible reviews in November 2021 and October 2022.
Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full texts of articles for eligibility, and appraised the quality of reviews using JBI. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Findings are reported in accordance with PRISMA checklist. Narrative summaries grouped findings by intervention types.
Out of 2632 records, we included 21 systematic reviews for a synthesis. Interventions for parenting stress in children with chronic diseases were divided into seven categories. Cognitive behavioural interventions, psychosocial interventions, child behavioural and/or developmental parent interventions and synthesized interventions have shown high-level evidence in reducing parenting stress for caregivers of children with chronic diseases. Furthermore, outcome measures and intervention protocols were highly heterogeneous across interventions.
This umbrella review suggest that reducing the parenting stress of caregivers of children with chronic diseases can directly target caregivers' parenting stress through cognitive behavioural interventions/psychosocial interventions and/or provide guidance to parents on the behavioural and developmental problems of children with chronic diseases. A more standardized approach to outcome measures is essential to assess efficacy and compare interventions across studies.
The findings provide information and evidence for reducing parenting stress among caregivers of children with chronic diseases to guide the development of comprehensive intervention strategies.
Patient or public contribution does not apply to this study.
To determine the frequency, timing, and duration of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) and their impact on health and function.
Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection is an emerging major public health problem that is poorly understood and has no current treatment or cure. PASC is a new syndrome that has yet to be fully clinically characterised.
Descriptive cross-sectional survey (n = 5163) was conducted from online COVID-19 survivor support groups who reported symptoms for more than 21 days following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Participants reported background demographics and the date and method of their covid diagnosis, as well as all symptoms experienced since onset of covid in terms of the symptom start date, duration, and Likert scales measuring three symptom-specific health impacts: pain and discomfort, work impairment, and social impairment. Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendencies were computed for participant demographics and symptom data.
Participants reported experiencing a mean of 21 symptoms (range 1–93); fatigue (79.0%), headache (55.3%), shortness of breath (55.3%) and difficulty concentrating (53.6%) were the most common. Symptoms often remitted and relapsed for extended periods of time (duration M = 112 days), longest lasting symptoms included the inability to exercise (M = 106.5 days), fatigue (M = 101.7 days) and difficulty concentrating, associated with memory impairment (M = 101.1 days). Participants reported extreme pressure at the base of the head, syncope, sharp or sudden chest pain, and “brain pressure” among the most distressing and impacting daily life.
Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection can be characterised by a wide range of symptoms, many of which cause moderate-to-severe distress and can hinder survivors' overall well-being.
This study advances our understanding of the symptoms of PASC and their health impacts.
FreshRSS 