Shixia Lei, Hongyan Zhang, Chenlu Yuan, Xinrui Bai, Yusheng Mo, Yuxia Ma, Lin Han
{"title":"儿科压力损伤风险评估工具的准确性：系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Shixia Lei, Hongyan Zhang, Chenlu Yuan, Xinrui Bai, Yusheng Mo, Yuxia Ma, Lin Han","doi":"10.1111/jocn.17670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the accuracy of different pressure injury risk assessment tools in paediatrics and identify risk assessment tools with the best predictive performance.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>A systematic review and network meta-analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Eight electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, Weipu Database, Wanfang Database and Chinese Biomedical Database were comprehensively searched. The study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines 2020. Two researchers independently conducted article screening, data extraction and quality assessment. Statistical analysis was performed using R 4.3.1 and Stata 14.0.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 20 articles were included in this study, involving 4908 patients and 13 pressure injury risk assessment tools for children, of which 15 articles were included in the network meta-analysis. The results showed that the Paediatric Pressure Ulcer Prediction and Evaluation Tool (PPUPET) had the highest superiority index, with the relative sensitivity (0.7, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.0–1.5) and the relative specificity (1.4, 95% CI: 0.7–1.8). The next was Braden-Q combined with the Glamorgan scale, with a superiority index of 7.08, a relative sensitivity of 1.1 (95% CI: 0.5–1.5) and a relative specificity of 1.3 (95% CI: 0.8–1.7).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This study suggested that the PPUPET can comprehensively evaluate medical device-related pressure injuries in children, the Braden-Q scale had a better predictive performance for children aged 21 days–8 years in general paediatric departments, and the Glamorgan scale was suitable in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Relevance to Clinical Practice</h3>\n \n <p>This review highlights that clinical practitioners should select appropriate assessment tools based on different departments and the age of children to accurately assess the risk of pressure injuries in children.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>No Patient or Public Contribution.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Protocol Registration</h3>\n \n <p>PROSPERO CRD42023470769. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50236,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","volume":"34 5","pages":"1900-1912"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Tools in Paediatrics: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Shixia Lei, Hongyan Zhang, Chenlu Yuan, Xinrui Bai, Yusheng Mo, Yuxia Ma, Lin Han\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jocn.17670\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>To evaluate the accuracy of different pressure injury risk assessment tools in paediatrics and identify risk assessment tools with the best predictive performance.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design</h3>\\n \\n <p>A systematic review and network meta-analysis.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Eight electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, Weipu Database, Wanfang Database and Chinese Biomedical Database were comprehensively searched. The study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines 2020. Two researchers independently conducted article screening, data extraction and quality assessment. Statistical analysis was performed using R 4.3.1 and Stata 14.0.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 20 articles were included in this study, involving 4908 patients and 13 pressure injury risk assessment tools for children, of which 15 articles were included in the network meta-analysis. The results showed that the Paediatric Pressure Ulcer Prediction and Evaluation Tool (PPUPET) had the highest superiority index, with the relative sensitivity (0.7, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.0–1.5) and the relative specificity (1.4, 95% CI: 0.7–1.8). The next was Braden-Q combined with the Glamorgan scale, with a superiority index of 7.08, a relative sensitivity of 1.1 (95% CI: 0.5–1.5) and a relative specificity of 1.3 (95% CI: 0.8–1.7).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study suggested that the PPUPET can comprehensively evaluate medical device-related pressure injuries in children, the Braden-Q scale had a better predictive performance for children aged 21 days–8 years in general paediatric departments, and the Glamorgan scale was suitable in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Relevance to Clinical Practice</h3>\\n \\n <p>This review highlights that clinical practitioners should select appropriate assessment tools based on different departments and the age of children to accurately assess the risk of pressure injuries in children.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\\n \\n <p>No Patient or Public Contribution.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Protocol Registration</h3>\\n \\n <p>PROSPERO CRD42023470769. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Nursing\",\"volume\":\"34 5\",\"pages\":\"1900-1912\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jocn.17670\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jocn.17670","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Accuracy of Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Tools in Paediatrics: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Aim
To evaluate the accuracy of different pressure injury risk assessment tools in paediatrics and identify risk assessment tools with the best predictive performance.
Design
A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Methods
Eight electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, Weipu Database, Wanfang Database and Chinese Biomedical Database were comprehensively searched. The study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines 2020. Two researchers independently conducted article screening, data extraction and quality assessment. Statistical analysis was performed using R 4.3.1 and Stata 14.0.
Results
A total of 20 articles were included in this study, involving 4908 patients and 13 pressure injury risk assessment tools for children, of which 15 articles were included in the network meta-analysis. The results showed that the Paediatric Pressure Ulcer Prediction and Evaluation Tool (PPUPET) had the highest superiority index, with the relative sensitivity (0.7, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.0–1.5) and the relative specificity (1.4, 95% CI: 0.7–1.8). The next was Braden-Q combined with the Glamorgan scale, with a superiority index of 7.08, a relative sensitivity of 1.1 (95% CI: 0.5–1.5) and a relative specificity of 1.3 (95% CI: 0.8–1.7).
Conclusions
This study suggested that the PPUPET can comprehensively evaluate medical device-related pressure injuries in children, the Braden-Q scale had a better predictive performance for children aged 21 days–8 years in general paediatric departments, and the Glamorgan scale was suitable in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit.
Relevance to Clinical Practice
This review highlights that clinical practitioners should select appropriate assessment tools based on different departments and the age of children to accurately assess the risk of pressure injuries in children.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Clinical Nursing (JCN) is an international, peer reviewed, scientific journal that seeks to promote the development and exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to all spheres of nursing practice. The primary aim is to promote a high standard of clinically related scholarship which advances and supports the practice and discipline of nursing. The Journal also aims to promote the international exchange of ideas and experience that draws from the different cultures in which practice takes place. Further, JCN seeks to enrich insight into clinical need and the implications for nursing intervention and models of service delivery. Emphasis is placed on promoting critical debate on the art and science of nursing practice.
JCN is essential reading for anyone involved in nursing practice, whether clinicians, researchers, educators, managers, policy makers, or students. The development of clinical practice and the changing patterns of inter-professional working are also central to JCN''s scope of interest. Contributions are welcomed from other health professionals on issues that have a direct impact on nursing practice.
We publish high quality papers from across the methodological spectrum that make an important and novel contribution to the field of clinical nursing (regardless of where care is provided), and which demonstrate clinical application and international relevance.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
