{"title":"Evidence mapping of clinical practice guidelines on nutritional management for pressure injuries and their quality.","authors":"Ya-Bin Zhang, Qi-Lan Tang, Shui-Yu Wang, Yu-Hua Zhao, Tian-Rui Wu, Jun-Xia Wang","doi":"10.1093/nutrit/nuad146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>The safety and efficacy of nutritional management for pressure injuries (PIs) have been the subjects of ongoing interest. Some evidence demonstrated that nutrition is essential for skin and tissue viability, supporting tissue repair for healing the pressure injury.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This investigation aimed to systematically review clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the nutritional management of PIs and furnish an evidence map to assess research trends and CPG gaps.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed, Embase, and guidelines databases, and society websites were searched for CPGs for the nutritional management of PIs. The basic recommendations for the nutritional management of PIs, method quality, and reporting CPGs quality were identified and imported into Excel. Four researchers independently elucidated each CPG's quality via the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist. All bubble charts were generated using Excel software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This review included 12 CPGs with a combined 23 recommendations. The nutrition screening and assessment were summarized on the basis of the PI recommendations for 6 major items, 12 items on nutrition management, and 3 on PI education. The assessed CPGs had mixed quality, and the highest score ± standard deviation based on the clarity of presentation was 83.46 ± 7.62, whereas the lowest mean score based on AGREE II applicability was 53.31 ± 16.90. Field 1 (basic information) in the RIGHT checklist had the greatest reporting rate (68.06%), whereas field 5 (review and quality assurance) had the lowest CPGs quality (41.67%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This investigation furnishes an evidence map and provides new perspectives on the CPGs for the nutritional management of PIs. However, the CPGs included still need improvement, especially in the applicability and editorial independence domains.</p>","PeriodicalId":19469,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition reviews","volume":" ","pages":"1524-1538"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuad146","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Context: The safety and efficacy of nutritional management for pressure injuries (PIs) have been the subjects of ongoing interest. Some evidence demonstrated that nutrition is essential for skin and tissue viability, supporting tissue repair for healing the pressure injury.
Objective: This investigation aimed to systematically review clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the nutritional management of PIs and furnish an evidence map to assess research trends and CPG gaps.
Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and guidelines databases, and society websites were searched for CPGs for the nutritional management of PIs. The basic recommendations for the nutritional management of PIs, method quality, and reporting CPGs quality were identified and imported into Excel. Four researchers independently elucidated each CPG's quality via the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist. All bubble charts were generated using Excel software.
Results: This review included 12 CPGs with a combined 23 recommendations. The nutrition screening and assessment were summarized on the basis of the PI recommendations for 6 major items, 12 items on nutrition management, and 3 on PI education. The assessed CPGs had mixed quality, and the highest score ± standard deviation based on the clarity of presentation was 83.46 ± 7.62, whereas the lowest mean score based on AGREE II applicability was 53.31 ± 16.90. Field 1 (basic information) in the RIGHT checklist had the greatest reporting rate (68.06%), whereas field 5 (review and quality assurance) had the lowest CPGs quality (41.67%).
Conclusion: This investigation furnishes an evidence map and provides new perspectives on the CPGs for the nutritional management of PIs. However, the CPGs included still need improvement, especially in the applicability and editorial independence domains.
期刊介绍：
Nutrition Reviews is a highly cited, monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that specializes in the publication of authoritative and critical literature reviews on current and emerging topics in nutrition science, food science, clinical nutrition, and nutrition policy. Readers of Nutrition Reviews include nutrition scientists, biomedical researchers, clinical and dietetic practitioners, and advanced students of nutrition.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
