对美国压力损伤风险评估的临床实践指南和其他最佳实践建议进行系统回顾。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 CELL BIOLOGY
Anna Serafin, Sara Graziadio, Vladica Velickovic, Thurid-Christiane Milde, Jacqueline Dinnes, Alice Sitch, April Coombe, Laurie McNichol, David G Armstrong, Heather Lueck, Jan Kottner
{"title":"对美国压力损伤风险评估的临床实践指南和其他最佳实践建议进行系统回顾。","authors":"Anna Serafin, Sara Graziadio, Vladica Velickovic, Thurid-Christiane Milde, Jacqueline Dinnes, Alice Sitch, April Coombe, Laurie McNichol, David G Armstrong, Heather Lueck, Jan Kottner","doi":"10.1111/wrr.70016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Preventing pressure injuries (PIs) remains the most effective way to reduce their burden. A key element of prevention is the assessment of PI risk. The study aimed to investigate whether guidance documents relevant to the United States (US) advocated for specific risk assessment recommendations. We conducted a systematic review of guidance documents published between 2010 and 2024. Embase, Medline, Cinahl, and four key organisational websites were systematically searched to retrieve relevant articles. Two independent reviewers screened the articles for inclusion. One reviewer extracted the data, and a second reviewer checked all extracted data. Three reviewers assessed the guidance documents quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. A narrative synthesis was used to describe and summarise findings. Six clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and eight other best practice recommendations were included. The median scores of most AGREE II domains were higher for CPGs compared to other best practice recommendations. Risk assessment was consistently positioned as a critical first step in the prevention of PIs, emphasising its role in identifying at-risk individuals and informing targeted interventions. Although risk assessment was presented as a crucial step in PI risk prevention, there was no clear and unanimous recommendation for a specific risk assessment strategy across all guidance documents, either for the general population or for specific subgroups of patients in US healthcare settings. These findings suggest a need for national consensus on concepts, implementation, and language addressing PI risk assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":23864,"journal":{"name":"Wound Repair and Regeneration","volume":"33 2","pages":"e70016"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11929040/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and other best practice recommendations for pressure injury risk assessment in the United States.\",\"authors\":\"Anna Serafin, Sara Graziadio, Vladica Velickovic, Thurid-Christiane Milde, Jacqueline Dinnes, Alice Sitch, April Coombe, Laurie McNichol, David G Armstrong, Heather Lueck, Jan Kottner\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/wrr.70016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Preventing pressure injuries (PIs) remains the most effective way to reduce their burden. A key element of prevention is the assessment of PI risk. The study aimed to investigate whether guidance documents relevant to the United States (US) advocated for specific risk assessment recommendations. We conducted a systematic review of guidance documents published between 2010 and 2024. Embase, Medline, Cinahl, and four key organisational websites were systematically searched to retrieve relevant articles. Two independent reviewers screened the articles for inclusion. One reviewer extracted the data, and a second reviewer checked all extracted data. Three reviewers assessed the guidance documents quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. A narrative synthesis was used to describe and summarise findings. Six clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and eight other best practice recommendations were included. The median scores of most AGREE II domains were higher for CPGs compared to other best practice recommendations. Risk assessment was consistently positioned as a critical first step in the prevention of PIs, emphasising its role in identifying at-risk individuals and informing targeted interventions. Although risk assessment was presented as a crucial step in PI risk prevention, there was no clear and unanimous recommendation for a specific risk assessment strategy across all guidance documents, either for the general population or for specific subgroups of patients in US healthcare settings. These findings suggest a need for national consensus on concepts, implementation, and language addressing PI risk assessment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23864,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wound Repair and Regeneration\",\"volume\":\"33 2\",\"pages\":\"e70016\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11929040/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wound Repair and Regeneration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.70016\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CELL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wound Repair and Regeneration","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.70016","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

预防压力性损伤(PIs)仍然是减轻他们负担的最有效方法。预防的一个关键要素是评估PI风险。该研究旨在调查与美国相关的指导文件是否提倡具体的风险评估建议。对2010年至2024年发布的指导性文件进行了系统审查。系统检索Embase、Medline、Cinahl和四个主要组织网站,检索相关文章。两名独立审稿人对文章进行了筛选。一个审稿人提取数据,另一个审稿人检查所有提取的数据。三名审稿人使用研究与评估指南评估(AGREE II)工具评估指导文件的质量。叙述性综合被用来描述和总结研究结果。包括6项临床实践指南(cpg)和8项其他最佳实践建议。与其他最佳实践建议相比,cpg的大多数AGREE II域的中位数得分更高。风险评估一直被定位为预防pi的关键第一步,强调其在识别风险个体和告知有针对性的干预措施方面的作用。尽管风险评估被认为是PI风险预防的关键步骤,但在所有指导文件中,无论是针对普通人群还是针对美国医疗保健机构的特定亚组患者,都没有明确和一致的具体风险评估策略建议。这些发现表明,需要在概念、实施和语言上达成全国共识,以解决PI风险评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and other best practice recommendations for pressure injury risk assessment in the United States.

A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and other best practice recommendations for pressure injury risk assessment in the United States.

A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and other best practice recommendations for pressure injury risk assessment in the United States.

Preventing pressure injuries (PIs) remains the most effective way to reduce their burden. A key element of prevention is the assessment of PI risk. The study aimed to investigate whether guidance documents relevant to the United States (US) advocated for specific risk assessment recommendations. We conducted a systematic review of guidance documents published between 2010 and 2024. Embase, Medline, Cinahl, and four key organisational websites were systematically searched to retrieve relevant articles. Two independent reviewers screened the articles for inclusion. One reviewer extracted the data, and a second reviewer checked all extracted data. Three reviewers assessed the guidance documents quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. A narrative synthesis was used to describe and summarise findings. Six clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and eight other best practice recommendations were included. The median scores of most AGREE II domains were higher for CPGs compared to other best practice recommendations. Risk assessment was consistently positioned as a critical first step in the prevention of PIs, emphasising its role in identifying at-risk individuals and informing targeted interventions. Although risk assessment was presented as a crucial step in PI risk prevention, there was no clear and unanimous recommendation for a specific risk assessment strategy across all guidance documents, either for the general population or for specific subgroups of patients in US healthcare settings. These findings suggest a need for national consensus on concepts, implementation, and language addressing PI risk assessment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Wound Repair and Regeneration
Wound Repair and Regeneration 医学-皮肤病学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
71
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Wound Repair and Regeneration provides extensive international coverage of cellular and molecular biology, connective tissue, and biological mediator studies in the field of tissue repair and regeneration and serves a diverse audience of surgeons, plastic surgeons, dermatologists, biochemists, cell biologists, and others. Wound Repair and Regeneration is the official journal of The Wound Healing Society, The European Tissue Repair Society, The Japanese Society for Wound Healing, and The Australian Wound Management Association.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信