The accuracy of the risk assessment scale for pressure ulcers in adult surgical patients: a network meta-analysis.

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Yanfen Shang, Fei Wang, Yuqian Cai, Qi Zhu, Xingsun Li, Rongrong Wang, Tao-Hsin Tung
{"title":"The accuracy of the risk assessment scale for pressure ulcers in adult surgical patients: a network meta-analysis.","authors":"Yanfen Shang, Fei Wang, Yuqian Cai, Qi Zhu, Xingsun Li, Rongrong Wang, Tao-Hsin Tung","doi":"10.1186/s12893-024-02739-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to synthesize existing evidence regarding the accuracy of different scales to assess the risk of intraoperative acquired pressure injury (IAPI), thus providing guidance for the accurate clinical screening of IAPI risk and helping to prevent and reduce the occurrence of IAPI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the following electronic databases to identify relevant studies on scales to assess the risk of IAPIs among adults: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, the WanFang Database, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Two authors independently screened the literature, evaluated the quality of the included studies, and extracted the data. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to rate the quality of evidence. ANOVA was performed via Stata and R software to implement diagnostic network meta-analysis via the Bayesian method to evaluate the predictive power of the dominance index.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 24 studies (6721 patients) were included, and the incidence of IAPIs was 12.30% (827/6721). Six IAPI risk assessment tools were used, and their rankings on the basis of the Bayesian dominance index were as follows: the ELPO Scale, 3.12 (95% CI: 0.14, 9); the Norton Scale, 2.63 (95% CI: 0.14, 11); the Waterlow Scale, 2.44 (95% CI: 0.14, 7); the Munro Scale, 2.39 (95% CI: 0.20, 7); the Scott Triggers tool, 1.55 (95% CI: 0.11, 5); and the Braden Scale, 0.36 (95% CI: 0.09, 3).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found that the ELPO Scale has good diagnostic test accuracy, and it is recommended that clinical workers prioritize the use of this scale in assessing the risk of pressure injuries among surgical patients, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of risk assessment for pressure injuries among surgical patients.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023470664).</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":"25 1","pages":"104"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11927353/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02739-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aims to synthesize existing evidence regarding the accuracy of different scales to assess the risk of intraoperative acquired pressure injury (IAPI), thus providing guidance for the accurate clinical screening of IAPI risk and helping to prevent and reduce the occurrence of IAPI.

Methods: We searched the following electronic databases to identify relevant studies on scales to assess the risk of IAPIs among adults: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, the WanFang Database, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Two authors independently screened the literature, evaluated the quality of the included studies, and extracted the data. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to rate the quality of evidence. ANOVA was performed via Stata and R software to implement diagnostic network meta-analysis via the Bayesian method to evaluate the predictive power of the dominance index.

Results: A total of 24 studies (6721 patients) were included, and the incidence of IAPIs was 12.30% (827/6721). Six IAPI risk assessment tools were used, and their rankings on the basis of the Bayesian dominance index were as follows: the ELPO Scale, 3.12 (95% CI: 0.14, 9); the Norton Scale, 2.63 (95% CI: 0.14, 11); the Waterlow Scale, 2.44 (95% CI: 0.14, 7); the Munro Scale, 2.39 (95% CI: 0.20, 7); the Scott Triggers tool, 1.55 (95% CI: 0.11, 5); and the Braden Scale, 0.36 (95% CI: 0.09, 3).

Conclusions: We found that the ELPO Scale has good diagnostic test accuracy, and it is recommended that clinical workers prioritize the use of this scale in assessing the risk of pressure injuries among surgical patients, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of risk assessment for pressure injuries among surgical patients.

Trial registration: This study has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023470664).

成人手术患者压疮风险评估量表的准确性:网络荟萃分析。
背景:本研究旨在综合现有评价术中获得性压力损伤(IAPI)风险不同量表准确性的证据,为临床准确筛查IAPI风险提供指导,有助于预防和减少IAPI的发生。方法:检索PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、Embase、Web of Science、中国知网(CNKI)、维普(VIP)、万方数据库和中国生物医学文献数据库,筛选成人iapi风险评估量表的相关研究。两位作者独立筛选文献,评估纳入研究的质量,并提取数据。使用QUADAS-2工具对证据质量进行评分。采用Stata和R软件进行方差分析,采用贝叶斯方法进行诊断网络meta分析,评价优势度指数的预测能力。结果:共纳入24项研究(6721例),iapi发生率为12.30%(827/6721)。使用了6种IAPI风险评估工具,基于贝叶斯优势指数的排名如下:ELPO量表,3.12 (95% CI: 0.14, 9);诺顿量表,2.63 (95% CI: 0.14, 11);Waterlow量表,2.44 (95% CI: 0.14, 7);Munro量表,2.39 (95% CI: 0.20, 7);Scott Triggers工具,1.55 (95% CI: 0.11, 5);结论:我们发现ELPO量表具有较好的诊断测试准确性,建议临床工作者优先使用该量表评估外科患者压力损伤风险,从而提高外科患者压力损伤风险评估的有效性。试验注册:本研究已在PROSPERO注册(CRD42023470664)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Surgery
BMC Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.30%
发文量
391
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: BMC Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on surgical research, training, and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信