scholarly journals Predictive validity of the braden scale for pressure injury risk assessment in adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Nursing Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Can Huang ◽  
Yuxia Ma ◽  
Chenxia Wang ◽  
Mengyao Jiang ◽  
Loretta Yuet Foon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Braden Scale ◽  
Pressure Injury

Relationship Between Smoking and Pressure Injury Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (9) ◽  
pp. 34-46
Author(s):  
Bing-Bing Wu ◽  
Dong-Zhou Gu ◽  
Jia-Ning Yu ◽  
Li-Peng Feng ◽  
Rong Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Pressure Injury ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis

BACKGROUND: Smoking is a risk factor for many diseases. PURPOSE: This study explored the relationship between current or past smoking and pressure injury (PI) risk through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The databases PubMed, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for the years between 2001 and 2020. Quality of evidence was estimated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The random effects model was applied to assess the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI); pooled adjusted OR and 95% CI, subgroup analysis, publication bias, sensitivity analyses, and meta-regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: Fifteen (15) studies (12 retrospective and 3 prospective) comprising data on 11 304 patients were eligible for inclusion in the review. The meta-analysis demonstrated that smoking increased the risk of PI (OR = 1.498; 95% CI, 1.058-2.122), and the pooled adjusted OR (1.969) and 95% CI (1.406-2.757) confirmed this finding. Publication bias was not detected by funnel plot, Begg’s test (P = .322), or Egger’s test (P = .666). Subgroup analyses yielded the same observations in both retrospective (OR = 1.607; 95% CI, 1.043-2.475) and prospective (OR = 1.218; 95% CI, 0.735-2.017) studies. The results were consistent across sensitivity analyses (OR = 1.07; 95% CI, 1.043-2.475). Relevant heterogeneity moderators were not identified by meta-regression analysis with PI incidence (P = .466), years of patient data included (P = .637), mean patient age (P = .650), and diabetes mellitus diagnosis (P = .509). CONCLUSION: This study found that individuals who are current or formers smokers have an almost 1.5 times higher risk of PI development than do those who do not smoke.

scholarly journals Assessing pressure injury risk using a single mobility scale in hospitalised patients: a comparative study using case-control design

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 387-403
Author(s):  
Siti Zubaidah Mordiffi ◽  
Bridie Kent ◽  
Nicole M. Phillips ◽  
Gerald Koh Choon Huat
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Control Design ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Single Factor ◽  
Limited Mobility ◽  
Braden Scale ◽  
Pressure Injury

Background Pressure injury is known to cause not only debilitating physical effects, but also substantial psychological and financial burdens. A variety of pressure injury risk assessment tools are in use worldwide, which include a number of factors. Evidence now suggests that assessment of a single factor, mobility, may be a viable alternative for assessing pressure injury risk. Aims The aim of this study was to ascertain whether using the Braden mobility subscale alone is comparable to the full Braden scale for predicting the development of pressure injury. Methods This study, a retrospective case-control design, was conducted in a large tertiary acute care hospital in Singapore. Medical records of 100 patients with hospital-acquired pressure injury were matched with 100 medical records of patients who had no pressure injury at a 1:1 ratio. Results Patients who were assessed using the Braden mobility subscale as having ‘very limited mobility’ or worse were 5.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.66–10.20) times more likely to develop pressure injury compared with those assessed as having ‘slightly limited’ mobility or ‘no limitation’. Conversely, patients assessed using the Braden scale as having ‘low risk’ or higher were 3.35 (95% CI 1.77–6.33) times more likely to develop pressure injury compared with those assessed as ‘no risk’. Using full model logistic regression analysis, the Braden mobility subscale was the only factor that was a significant predictor of pressure injury and it remained significant when analysed for the most parsimonious model using backward logistic regression. Conclusions These findings provide the empirical evidence that using the Braden mobility subscale alone as an assessment tool for predicting pressure injury development is comparable to using the full Braden scale. Use of this single factor would simplify pressure injury risk assessment and support its use within busy clinical settings.

A global systematic review, meta-analysis and health risk assessment on the quantity of Malathion, Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos in Vegetables

Chemosphere ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 270 ◽  
pp. 129382
Author(s):  
Majid Kermani ◽  
Mohsen Dowlati ◽  
Mitra Gholami ◽  
Hamid Reza Sobhi ◽  
Ali Azari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Health Risk ◽  
Health Risk Assessment ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Inter-Rater Reliability of a Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Scale for Home Care: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study

2020 ◽  
Vol Volume 13 ◽  
pp. 2031-2041
Author(s):  
Masushi Kohta ◽  
Takehiko Ohura ◽  
Kunio Tsukada ◽  
Yoshinori Nakamura ◽  
Mishiho Sukegawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Home Care ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Assessment Scale ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Rater Reliability ◽  
Pressure Injury

Predictive validity and reliability of the Braden scale for risk assessment of pressure ulcers in an intensive care unit

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 82-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Lima-Serrano ◽  
M.I. González-Méndez ◽  
C. Martín-Castaño ◽  
I. Alonso-Araujo ◽  
J.S. Lima-Rodríguez
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Pressure Ulcers ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Braden Scale
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document