{"title":"比较诺顿量表和布莱登量表在确定老年患者压伤风险方面的预测效力。","authors":"Ibrahim Kiyat, Ayfer Ozbas","doi":"10.1097/NUR.0000000000000815","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the reliability and predictive validity of Norton and Braden scales in determining the risk of pressure injury in elderly patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This research used a comparative design. One hundred thirty elderly patients participated in the study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The daily pressure injury risk of participants was evaluated by a researcher using both the Norton and Braden scales in a consecutive manner.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of patients was 75.1 ± 8.5 years, and that for those without and with pressure injury development was 75.0 ± 8.3 years and 76.1 ± 9.7 years (P < .001), respectively. The reliability coefficients of the Norton and Braden scales were .82 and .89, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Norton Scale were 100%, 40.7%, 20.2%, and 100%, and those of the Braden Scale were 100%, 32.7%, 18.3%, and 100%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The reliability of both scales for elderly patients was found to be high, and their ability to differentiate patients at risk was comparable. However, both scales had low specificity. Further research is needed to develop scales that have higher predictive validity for the elderly population, taking into account other risk factors that influence total scale scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":55249,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Nurse Specialist","volume":"38 3","pages":"141-146"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Norton and Braden Scales in Determining the Risk of Pressure Injury in Elderly Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Ibrahim Kiyat, Ayfer Ozbas\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/NUR.0000000000000815\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the reliability and predictive validity of Norton and Braden scales in determining the risk of pressure injury in elderly patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This research used a comparative design. One hundred thirty elderly patients participated in the study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The daily pressure injury risk of participants was evaluated by a researcher using both the Norton and Braden scales in a consecutive manner.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of patients was 75.1 ± 8.5 years, and that for those without and with pressure injury development was 75.0 ± 8.3 years and 76.1 ± 9.7 years (P < .001), respectively. The reliability coefficients of the Norton and Braden scales were .82 and .89, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Norton Scale were 100%, 40.7%, 20.2%, and 100%, and those of the Braden Scale were 100%, 32.7%, 18.3%, and 100%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The reliability of both scales for elderly patients was found to be high, and their ability to differentiate patients at risk was comparable. However, both scales had low specificity. Further research is needed to develop scales that have higher predictive validity for the elderly population, taking into account other risk factors that influence total scale scores.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Nurse Specialist\",\"volume\":\"38 3\",\"pages\":\"141-146\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Nurse Specialist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000815\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Nurse Specialist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000815","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Norton and Braden Scales in Determining the Risk of Pressure Injury in Elderly Patients.
Aim: To compare the reliability and predictive validity of Norton and Braden scales in determining the risk of pressure injury in elderly patients.
Design: This research used a comparative design. One hundred thirty elderly patients participated in the study.
Methods: The daily pressure injury risk of participants was evaluated by a researcher using both the Norton and Braden scales in a consecutive manner.
Results: The mean age of patients was 75.1 ± 8.5 years, and that for those without and with pressure injury development was 75.0 ± 8.3 years and 76.1 ± 9.7 years (P < .001), respectively. The reliability coefficients of the Norton and Braden scales were .82 and .89, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Norton Scale were 100%, 40.7%, 20.2%, and 100%, and those of the Braden Scale were 100%, 32.7%, 18.3%, and 100%, respectively.
Conclusions: The reliability of both scales for elderly patients was found to be high, and their ability to differentiate patients at risk was comparable. However, both scales had low specificity. Further research is needed to develop scales that have higher predictive validity for the elderly population, taking into account other risk factors that influence total scale scores.
期刊介绍：
The purpose of Clinical Nurse Specialist™: The International Journal for Advanced Nursing Practice is to disseminate outcomes of clinical nurse specialist practice, to foster continued development o fthe clinical nurse specialist role, and to highlight clinical nurse specialist contributions to advancing nursing practice and health policy globally. Objectives of the journal are: 1. Disseminate knowledge about clinical nurse specialist competencies and the education and regulation of practice; 2. Communicate outcomes of clinical nurse specialist practice on quality, safety, and cost of nursing and health services across the continuum of care; 3. Promote evidence-based practice and innovation in the transformation of nursing and health policy for the betterment of the public welfare; 4. Foster intra-professional and interdisciplinary dialogue addressing nursing and health services for specialty populations in diverse care settings adn cultures.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
