Studio Alterazioni Cutanee Stomali (SACS)和Ostomy Skin Tool (OST)仪器用于口周皮肤病分类的有效性、可靠性和可用性:系统综述。

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Lien Degol, Ine Olaerts, Stijn Jacobs, Gregory Sergeant, Yves Depaifve, Kristel Paque, Koen Milisen
{"title":"Studio Alterazioni Cutanee Stomali (SACS)和Ostomy Skin Tool (OST)仪器用于口周皮肤病分类的有效性、可靠性和可用性:系统综述。","authors":"Lien Degol, Ine Olaerts, Stijn Jacobs, Gregory Sergeant, Yves Depaifve, Kristel Paque, Koen Milisen","doi":"10.1097/WON.0000000000001197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the published literature to determine the validity, reliability, and usability of the Studio Alterazioni Cutanee Stomali (SACS) and Ostomy Skin Tool (OST) instruments.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Systematic literature review.</p><p><strong>Search strategy: </strong>We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL via EBSCO, Embase, and CENTRAL. The search was limited to studies published after 2005 and written in the English or Dutch languages. Inclusion criteria were adults (18 years or older) with any type of abdominal ostomy created for any medical indication. Elements were selected for inclusion when they examined or described at least one psychometric aspect regarding validity, reliability, or usability of the OST or SACS.</p><p><strong>Findings conclusions: </strong>The search retrieved 3077 records after removing duplicate elements. This systematic review is based on findings from four studies identifying two different psychometric properties. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias Checklist and the COSMIN Risk of Bias Tool were used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The modified GRADE-approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence for outcomes reported in this systematic review. According to the COSMIN criteria, the overall assessment for reliability and content validity was variable or indeterminate. This results in a low quality of evidence regarding the assessment instruments SACS and OST. Based on these findings, we conclude that neither the SACS nor OST have been sufficiently evaluated to fully determine their validity, reliability and usability in the clinical setting.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>More research of peristomal skin assessment instruments SACS and OST is needed for further refining and validation before they can be introduced as a \"gold standard\" in practice among nurses, experts, and clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":49950,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing","volume":"52 4","pages":"303-312"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Validity, Reliability and Usability of the Studio Alterazioni Cutanee Stomali (SACS) and Ostomy Skin Tool (OST) Instruments for Classification of Peristomal Skin Disorders: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Lien Degol, Ine Olaerts, Stijn Jacobs, Gregory Sergeant, Yves Depaifve, Kristel Paque, Koen Milisen\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/WON.0000000000001197\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the published literature to determine the validity, reliability, and usability of the Studio Alterazioni Cutanee Stomali (SACS) and Ostomy Skin Tool (OST) instruments.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Systematic literature review.</p><p><strong>Search strategy: </strong>We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL via EBSCO, Embase, and CENTRAL. The search was limited to studies published after 2005 and written in the English or Dutch languages. Inclusion criteria were adults (18 years or older) with any type of abdominal ostomy created for any medical indication. Elements were selected for inclusion when they examined or described at least one psychometric aspect regarding validity, reliability, or usability of the OST or SACS.</p><p><strong>Findings conclusions: </strong>The search retrieved 3077 records after removing duplicate elements. This systematic review is based on findings from four studies identifying two different psychometric properties. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias Checklist and the COSMIN Risk of Bias Tool were used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The modified GRADE-approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence for outcomes reported in this systematic review. According to the COSMIN criteria, the overall assessment for reliability and content validity was variable or indeterminate. This results in a low quality of evidence regarding the assessment instruments SACS and OST. Based on these findings, we conclude that neither the SACS nor OST have been sufficiently evaluated to fully determine their validity, reliability and usability in the clinical setting.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>More research of peristomal skin assessment instruments SACS and OST is needed for further refining and validation before they can be introduced as a \\\"gold standard\\\" in practice among nurses, experts, and clinicians.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49950,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing\",\"volume\":\"52 4\",\"pages\":\"303-312\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000001197\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000001197","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本系统综述的目的是综合已发表的文献,以确定Studio Alterazioni Cutanee Stomali (SACS)和Ostomy Skin Tool (OST)器械的效度、可靠性和可用性。方法:系统文献复习。检索策略:我们检索了以下电子数据库:PubMed, CINAHL via EBSCO, Embase和CENTRAL。这项研究仅限于2005年以后发表的、用英语或荷兰语撰写的研究。纳入标准为成人(18岁或以上),有任何医学指征的任何类型的腹部造口术。当元素检查或描述至少一个关于OST或SACS的效度、信度或可用性的心理测量方面时,它们被选择纳入。结果结论:删除重复元素后,检索到3077条记录。本系统综述基于四项研究的发现,确定了两种不同的心理测量特性。采用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)偏倚风险检查表和COSMIN偏倚风险工具来评估纳入研究的方法学质量。改进的grade -方法用于评估本系统评价报告结果的证据质量。根据COSMIN标准,对信度和内容效度的总体评估是可变的或不确定的。这导致关于评估工具SACS和OST的证据质量较低。基于这些发现,我们得出结论,SACS和OST都没有得到充分的评估,无法完全确定它们在临床环境中的有效性、可靠性和可用性。意义:在将SACS和OST作为“金标准”引入护士、专家和临床医生的实践之前,需要对肠周皮肤评估仪器进行更多的研究,以进一步完善和验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Validity, Reliability and Usability of the Studio Alterazioni Cutanee Stomali (SACS) and Ostomy Skin Tool (OST) Instruments for Classification of Peristomal Skin Disorders: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the published literature to determine the validity, reliability, and usability of the Studio Alterazioni Cutanee Stomali (SACS) and Ostomy Skin Tool (OST) instruments.

Method: Systematic literature review.

Search strategy: We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL via EBSCO, Embase, and CENTRAL. The search was limited to studies published after 2005 and written in the English or Dutch languages. Inclusion criteria were adults (18 years or older) with any type of abdominal ostomy created for any medical indication. Elements were selected for inclusion when they examined or described at least one psychometric aspect regarding validity, reliability, or usability of the OST or SACS.

Findings conclusions: The search retrieved 3077 records after removing duplicate elements. This systematic review is based on findings from four studies identifying two different psychometric properties. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias Checklist and the COSMIN Risk of Bias Tool were used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The modified GRADE-approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence for outcomes reported in this systematic review. According to the COSMIN criteria, the overall assessment for reliability and content validity was variable or indeterminate. This results in a low quality of evidence regarding the assessment instruments SACS and OST. Based on these findings, we conclude that neither the SACS nor OST have been sufficiently evaluated to fully determine their validity, reliability and usability in the clinical setting.

Implications: More research of peristomal skin assessment instruments SACS and OST is needed for further refining and validation before they can be introduced as a "gold standard" in practice among nurses, experts, and clinicians.

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
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
34.60%
发文量
186
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​The Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing (JWOCN), the official journal of the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society™ (WOCN®), is the premier publication for wound, ostomy and continence practice and research. The Journal’s mission is to publish current best evidence and original research to guide the delivery of expert health care. The WOCN Society is a professional nursing society which supports its members by promoting educational, clinical and research opportunities to advance the practice and guide the delivery of expert health care to individuals with wounds, ostomies and continence care needs.
×
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