Conectar
The main aim of this study is to synthesize the prevalent predictive models for pressure injuries in hospitalized patients, with the goal of identifying common predictive factors linked to pressure injuries in hospitalized patients. This endeavour holds the potential to provide clinical nurses with a valuable reference for providing targeted care to high-risk patients.
Pressure injuries (PIs) are a frequently occurring health problem throughout the world. There are mounting studies about risk prediction model of PIs reported and published. However, the prediction performance of the models is still unclear.
Systematic review and meta-analysis: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Chinese databases including CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Database, Weipu Database and CBM (China Biology Medicine).
This systematic review was conducted following PRISMA recommendations. The databases of Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CNKI, Weipu Database, Wanfang Database and CBM were searched for all studies published before September 2023. We included studies with cohort, case–control designs, reporting the development of risk model and have been validated externally and internally among the hospitalized patients. Two researchers selected the retrieved studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and critically evaluated the quality of studies based on the CHARMS checklist. The PRISMA guideline was used to report the systematic review and meta-analysis.
Sixty-two studies were included, which contained 99 pressure injuries risk prediction models. The AUC (area under ROC curve) of modelling in 32 prediction models were reported ranged from .70 to .99, while the AUC of verification in 38 models were reported ranged from .70 to .98. Gender (OR = 1.41, CI: .99 ~ 1.31), age (WMD = 8.81, CI: 8.11 ~ 9.57), diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.64, CI: 1.36 ~ 1.99), mechanical ventilation (OR = 2.71, CI: 2.05 ~ 3.57), length of hospital stay (WMD = 7.65, CI: 7.24 ~ 8.05) were the most common predictors of pressure injuries.
Studies of PIs risk prediction model in hospitalized patients had high research quality, and the risk prediction models also had good predictive performance. However, some of the included studies lacked of internal or external validation in modelling, which affected the stability and extendibility. The aged, male patient in ICU, albumin, haematocrit, low haemoglobin level, diabetes, mechanical ventilation and length of stay in hospital were high-risk factors for pressure injuries in hospitalized patients. In the future, it is recommended that clinical nurses, in practice, select predictive models with better performance to identify high-risk patients based on the actual situation and provide care targeting the high-risk factors to prevent the occurrence of diseases.
The risk prediction model is an effective tool for identifying patients at the risk of developing PIs. With the help of risk prediction tool, nurses can identify the high-risk patients and common predictive factors, predict the probability of developing PIs, then provide specific preventive measures to improve the outcomes of these patients.
CRD42023445258.
In 2015, the term ‘intrinsic capacity’ (IC) was proposed by the World Health Organisation to promote healthy aging. However, the factors associated with IC are still discrepant and uncertain.
We aim to synthesise the factors connected with IC.
This scoping review followed the five-stage framework of Arksey and O'Malley and was reported using PRISMA-ScR guidelines.
In all, 29 articles were included. IC of older adults is associated with demographic characteristics, socioeconomic factors, disease conditions, behavioural factors, and biomarkers. Age, sex, marital status, occupation status, education, income/wealth, chronic diseases, hypertension, diabetes, disability, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and physical activity were emerged as important factors related to the IC of older adults.
This review shows that IC is related to multiple factors. Understanding these factors can provide the healthcare personnel with the theoretical basis for intervening and managing IC in older adults.
The influencing factors identified in the review help to guide older adults to maintain their own intrinsic capacity, thereby promoting their health and well-being. The modifiable factors also provide evidence for healthcare personnel to develop targeted intervention strategies to delay IC decline.
As this is a scoping review, no patient or public contributions are required.
To investigate the preventive effect of different dressings on pressure injuries related to non-invasive ventilation equipment and to screen the efficacy of dressings. Systematic review and network meta-analysis. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (CNKI), Wanfang Database, Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) and Weipu Database (VIP) were used for the search from the date of inception of each database to 15 October 2023. The quality of the data was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Stata 16.0 Software was used to analysis and ranking of different types of dressings. A total of 23 randomized controlled trials on 7 interventions were included in the final analysis. The effectiveness of these in preventing the overall incidence of pressure injuries is ranked from best to worst as follows: hydrogel dressing > foam dressing > petroleum jelly gauze dressing > hydrocolloid dressing > film dressing > clean gauze dressing > sterile gauze. Sixteen studies reported the incidence of Stage I pressure injuries, the effectiveness in preventing the incidence of Stage I pressure injuries was ranked from best to least effective: foam dressing > hydrogel dressing > petroleum jelly gauze dressing > hydrocolloid dressing > film dressing > clean gauze dressing > sterile gauze dressing. Fourteen studies reported the incidence of Stages I/II pressure injuries, the effective in preventing the incidence of Stages I and II pressure injuries was ranked from best to least effective: foam dressing > hydrogel dressing > petroleum jelly gauze dressing > hydrocolloid dressing > clean gauze dressing > sterile gauze dressing. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of different dressings, both hydrogel and foam dressings are effective in preventing pressure injuries related to non-invasive ventilation equipment.
To evaluate the predictive validity and reliability of the Waterlow scale in critically adult hospitalised patients.
A multi-centre cohort study.
This study was conducted in 72 intensive care units (ICUs) in 38 tertiary hospitals in Gansu Province, China. All adults admitted to the ICU for greater than or equal to 24 h without pressure injury (PI) on admission were screened by the Waterlow scale on admission, during ICU stay and ICU discharge from April 2021 to February 2023. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine a potential cut-off value for critical adult hospitalised patients. Cut-off values were then determined using Youden's index, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were calculated based on these cut-off values. Test–retest reliability was used to evaluate inter-rater reliability.
A total of 5874 critical patients on admission were included, and 5125 of them were assessed regularly. The area under curve (AUC) was 0.623 (95% CI, 0.574–0.690), with a cut-off score of 19 showing the best balance among sensitivity of 62.7%, specificity of 57.4%, positive predictive value of 2.07% and negative predictive value of 99.08%. The test–retest reliability between the first assessment and the regular assessment was 0.447.
The Waterlow scale shows insufficient predictive validity and reliability in discriminating critical adults at risk of PI development. To further modify the items of the Waterlow scale, exploring specific risk factors for PI in the ICU and clarifying their impact degree was necessary. Risk predictive models or better tools are inevitable in the future.
Patients or family members supported nurses with PI risk assessment, skin examination and other activities during the inquiry.
FreshRSS 