Predictive Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Tools for Elderly: A Meta-Analysis
Preventing pressure ulcers is one of the most challenging goals existing for today’s health care provider. Currently used tools which assess risk of pressure ulcer development rarely evaluate the accuracy of predictability, especially in older adults. The current study aimed at providing a systemic...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Western Journal of Nursing Research 2016-04, Vol.38 (4), p.459-483 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 483 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 459 |
| container_title | Western Journal of Nursing Research |
| container_volume | 38 |
| creator | Park, Seong-Hi Lee, Young-Shin Kwon, Young-Mi |
| description | Preventing pressure ulcers is one of the most challenging goals existing for today’s health care provider. Currently used tools which assess risk of pressure ulcer development rarely evaluate the accuracy of predictability, especially in older adults. The current study aimed at providing a systemic review and meta-analysis of 29 studies using three pressure ulcer risk assessment tools: Braden, Norton, and Waterlow Scales. Overall predictive validities of pressure ulcer risks in the pooled sensitivity and specificity indicated a similar range with a moderate accuracy level in all three scales, while heterogeneity showed more than 80% variability among studies. The studies applying the Braden Scale used five different cut-off points representing the primary cause of heterogeneity. Results indicate that commonly used screening tools for pressure ulcer risk have limitations regarding validity and accuracy for use with older adults due to heterogeneity among studies. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0193945915602259 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1827458247</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0193945915602259</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1774532617</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-d43208db89ad895b210b7d3a6ff25569232e98b4f523966901388bee5105d67a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1Lw0AQxRdRbK3ePcmCFy_R_f44llKrUFCk9RqS7EZSN926mwj9701oFSmIp4E3v3nDzAPgEqNbjKW8Q1hTzbjGXCBCuD4CQ8w5SRTj4hgM-3bS9wfgLMYVQogwTE7BgAhKpeJ6CGbPwZqqaKpPC18zV5mq2UJfwk6OsQ0WLl1hA3yp4jscx9iJtV03cOG9i7D0AU6dscFtz8FJmbloL_Z1BJb308XkIZk_zR4n43lSUI6bxDBKkDK50plRmucEo1wamomyJJwLTSixWuWs5IRqITTCVKncWo4RN0JmdARudr6b4D9aG5u0rmJhncvW1rcxxYpIxhVh8n9UdiQlAvfo9QG68m1Yd4f0lGS6e3NPoR1VBB9jsGW6CVWdhW2KUdrnkR7m0Y1c7Y3bvLbmZ-A7gA5IdkDM3uyvrX8ZfgHmco9O</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1777499397</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Predictive Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Tools for Elderly: A Meta-Analysis</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Park, Seong-Hi ; Lee, Young-Shin ; Kwon, Young-Mi</creator><creatorcontrib>Park, Seong-Hi ; Lee, Young-Shin ; Kwon, Young-Mi</creatorcontrib><description>Preventing pressure ulcers is one of the most challenging goals existing for today’s health care provider. Currently used tools which assess risk of pressure ulcer development rarely evaluate the accuracy of predictability, especially in older adults. The current study aimed at providing a systemic review and meta-analysis of 29 studies using three pressure ulcer risk assessment tools: Braden, Norton, and Waterlow Scales. Overall predictive validities of pressure ulcer risks in the pooled sensitivity and specificity indicated a similar range with a moderate accuracy level in all three scales, while heterogeneity showed more than 80% variability among studies. The studies applying the Braden Scale used five different cut-off points representing the primary cause of heterogeneity. Results indicate that commonly used screening tools for pressure ulcer risk have limitations regarding validity and accuracy for use with older adults due to heterogeneity among studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0193-9459</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-8456</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0193945915602259</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26337859</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Clinical assessment ; Forecasting ; Heterogeneity ; Humans ; Medical personnel ; Medical screening ; Meta-analysis ; Middle Aged ; Nursing ; Older people ; Predictions ; Predictive validity ; Pressure Ulcer - diagnosis ; Pressure ulcers ; Reproducibility of Results ; Risk Assessment ; Risk factors ; Sensitivity ; Systematic review ; Ulcers ; Validity ; Variability</subject><ispartof>Western Journal of Nursing Research, 2016-04, Vol.38 (4), p.459-483</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2015</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2015.</rights><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Apr 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-d43208db89ad895b210b7d3a6ff25569232e98b4f523966901388bee5105d67a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0193945915602259$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193945915602259$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>313,314,776,780,788,21798,27899,27901,27902,30976,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26337859$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Park, Seong-Hi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Young-Shin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kwon, Young-Mi</creatorcontrib><title>Predictive Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Tools for Elderly: A Meta-Analysis</title><title>Western Journal of Nursing Research</title><addtitle>West J Nurs Res</addtitle><description>Preventing pressure ulcers is one of the most challenging goals existing for today’s health care provider. Currently used tools which assess risk of pressure ulcer development rarely evaluate the accuracy of predictability, especially in older adults. The current study aimed at providing a systemic review and meta-analysis of 29 studies using three pressure ulcer risk assessment tools: Braden, Norton, and Waterlow Scales. Overall predictive validities of pressure ulcer risks in the pooled sensitivity and specificity indicated a similar range with a moderate accuracy level in all three scales, while heterogeneity showed more than 80% variability among studies. The studies applying the Braden Scale used five different cut-off points representing the primary cause of heterogeneity. Results indicate that commonly used screening tools for pressure ulcer risk have limitations regarding validity and accuracy for use with older adults due to heterogeneity among studies.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Clinical assessment</subject><subject>Forecasting</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Older people</subject><subject>Predictions</subject><subject>Predictive validity</subject><subject>Pressure Ulcer - diagnosis</subject><subject>Pressure ulcers</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Risk Assessment</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Sensitivity</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Ulcers</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>Variability</subject><issn>0193-9459</issn><issn>1552-8456</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1Lw0AQxRdRbK3ePcmCFy_R_f44llKrUFCk9RqS7EZSN926mwj9701oFSmIp4E3v3nDzAPgEqNbjKW8Q1hTzbjGXCBCuD4CQ8w5SRTj4hgM-3bS9wfgLMYVQogwTE7BgAhKpeJ6CGbPwZqqaKpPC18zV5mq2UJfwk6OsQ0WLl1hA3yp4jscx9iJtV03cOG9i7D0AU6dscFtz8FJmbloL_Z1BJb308XkIZk_zR4n43lSUI6bxDBKkDK50plRmucEo1wamomyJJwLTSixWuWs5IRqITTCVKncWo4RN0JmdARudr6b4D9aG5u0rmJhncvW1rcxxYpIxhVh8n9UdiQlAvfo9QG68m1Yd4f0lGS6e3NPoR1VBB9jsGW6CVWdhW2KUdrnkR7m0Y1c7Y3bvLbmZ-A7gA5IdkDM3uyvrX8ZfgHmco9O</recordid><startdate>201604</startdate><enddate>201604</enddate><creator>Park, Seong-Hi</creator><creator>Lee, Young-Shin</creator><creator>Kwon, Young-Mi</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201604</creationdate><title>Predictive Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Tools for Elderly</title><author>Park, Seong-Hi ; Lee, Young-Shin ; Kwon, Young-Mi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-d43208db89ad895b210b7d3a6ff25569232e98b4f523966901388bee5105d67a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Clinical assessment</topic><topic>Forecasting</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Older people</topic><topic>Predictions</topic><topic>Predictive validity</topic><topic>Pressure Ulcer - diagnosis</topic><topic>Pressure ulcers</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Risk Assessment</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Sensitivity</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Ulcers</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>Variability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Park, Seong-Hi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Young-Shin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kwon, Young-Mi</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Western Journal of Nursing Research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Park, Seong-Hi</au><au>Lee, Young-Shin</au><au>Kwon, Young-Mi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Predictive Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Tools for Elderly: A Meta-Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Western Journal of Nursing Research</jtitle><addtitle>West J Nurs Res</addtitle><date>2016-04</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>459</spage><epage>483</epage><pages>459-483</pages><issn>0193-9459</issn><eissn>1552-8456</eissn><abstract>Preventing pressure ulcers is one of the most challenging goals existing for today’s health care provider. Currently used tools which assess risk of pressure ulcer development rarely evaluate the accuracy of predictability, especially in older adults. The current study aimed at providing a systemic review and meta-analysis of 29 studies using three pressure ulcer risk assessment tools: Braden, Norton, and Waterlow Scales. Overall predictive validities of pressure ulcer risks in the pooled sensitivity and specificity indicated a similar range with a moderate accuracy level in all three scales, while heterogeneity showed more than 80% variability among studies. The studies applying the Braden Scale used five different cut-off points representing the primary cause of heterogeneity. Results indicate that commonly used screening tools for pressure ulcer risk have limitations regarding validity and accuracy for use with older adults due to heterogeneity among studies.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>26337859</pmid><doi>10.1177/0193945915602259</doi><tpages>25</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0193-9459 |
| ispartof | Western Journal of Nursing Research, 2016-04, Vol.38 (4), p.459-483 |
| issn | 0193-9459 1552-8456 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1827458247 |
| source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); MEDLINE; SAGE Complete |
| subjects | Accuracy Clinical assessment Forecasting Heterogeneity Humans Medical personnel Medical screening Meta-analysis Middle Aged Nursing Older people Predictions Predictive validity Pressure Ulcer - diagnosis Pressure ulcers Reproducibility of Results Risk Assessment Risk factors Sensitivity Systematic review Ulcers Validity Variability |
| title | Predictive Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Tools for Elderly: A Meta-Analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T06%3A05%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Predictive%20Validity%20of%20Pressure%20Ulcer%20Risk%20Assessment%20Tools%20for%20Elderly:%20A%20Meta-Analysis&rft.jtitle=Western%20Journal%20of%20Nursing%20Research&rft.au=Park,%20Seong-Hi&rft.date=2016-04&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=459&rft.epage=483&rft.pages=459-483&rft.issn=0193-9459&rft.eissn=1552-8456&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0193945915602259&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1774532617%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1777499397&rft_id=info:pmid/26337859&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0193945915602259&rfr_iscdi=true |