Literature DB >> 22316631

The Braden Scale cannot be used alone for assessing pressure ulcer risk in surgical patients: a meta-analysis.

Wei He1, Peng Liu, Hong-Lin Chen.   

Abstract

The validity and reliability of the Braden Scale for pressure ulcer development has been established in a variety of patient care settings, but studies suggest the scale does not capture risk factors in surgical patients. The purpose of this metaanalysis was to assess the predictive validity of the Braden Scale for pressure ulcer development in surgical patients. A literature search using PubMed and Web of Science databases (through July 2011) was conducted to identify all clinical studies on predicting pressure ulcers in surgical patients using the Braden Scale. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to include sensitivity (true positive rate, TPR) and specificity (true negative rate, TNR) results or include sufficient data to calculate these factors. Study quality was assessed using the 14-item Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) instrument, and two-by-two tables of predictive validity were constructed from each article. Meta-analysis for predictive validity was performed, including calculation of pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), construction of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves, and overall diagnostic accuracy (Q*). Three studies (N = 609 patients) met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria. The pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity were 0.42 (95% CI: 0.38 to 0.47) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0. 83 to 0.85), respectively, yielding a combined DOR of 4.40 (95% CI: 2.98 to 6.50). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.6921 ± 0.0346, and the Q* was 0.6466 ± 0.0274. Significant heterogeneity was noted between the included studies with Q value 34.49 (P = 0.0321), and I2 for pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, and pooled DOR was 88.7%, 98.6%, and 39.1%, respectively. Although the observed heterogeneity between studies may have affected the results, the low values for overall diagnostic accuracy (Q*) and diagnostic capability (AUC) indicate the Braden Scale has low predictive validity for pressure ulcer risk in surgical patients. A new pressure ulcer risk assessment scale for surgical patients should be developed and tested.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22316631

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ostomy Wound Manage        ISSN: 0889-5899            Impact factor:   2.629


  13 in total

1.  Perioperative corticosteroids administration as a risk factor for pressure ulcers in cardiovascular surgical patients: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Hong-Lin Chen; Wang-Qin Shen; Yang-Hui Xu; Qun Zhang; Juan Wu
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 2.  Pressure ulcers in cardiac surgery: Few clinical studies, difficult risk assessment, and profound clinical implications.

Authors:  Camilla Chello; Mario Lusini; Davide Schilirò; Salvatore Matteo Greco; Raffaele Barbato; Antonio Nenna
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 3.315

3.  Critical biomechanical and clinical insights concerning tissue protection when positioning patients in the operating room: A scoping review.

Authors:  Amit Gefen; Sue Creehan; Joyce Black
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-06-04       Impact factor: 3.315

4.  A new nomogram score for predicting surgery-related pressure ulcers in cardiovascular surgical patients.

Authors:  Cai-Xia Lu; Hong-Lin Chen; Wang-Qin Shen; Li-Ping Feng
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 3.315

5.  Operating room nurses' self-reported knowledge and attitude on perioperative pressure injury.

Authors:  Betty Peck Chui Khong; Bong Chee Goh; Lai Yee Phang; Thamilselvi David
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 3.315

6.  Pressure injury identification, measurement, coding, and reporting: Key challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Carolina D Weller; Esther R Gershenzon; Sue M Evans; Victoria Team; John J McNeil
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 7.  A prediction tool for hospital-acquired pressure ulcers among surgical patients: Surgical pressure ulcer risk score.

Authors:  Fazila Aloweni; Shin Yuh Ang; Stephanie Fook-Chong; Nurliyana Agus; Patricia Yong; Meh Meh Goh; Lisa Tucker-Kellogg; Rick Chai Soh
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 3.315

8.  Risk Factors for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injury in Surgical Critical Care Patients.

Authors:  Jenny Alderden; Linda J Cowan; Jonathan B Dimas; Danli Chen; Yue Zhang; Mollie Cummins; Tracey L Yap
Journal:  Am J Crit Care       Date:  2020-11-01       Impact factor: 2.228

9.  Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers.

Authors:  Zena Eh Moore; Declan Patton
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-01-31

10.  Perioperative factors associated with pressure ulcer development after major surgery.

Authors:  Jeong Min Kim; Hyunjeong Lee; Taehoon Ha; Sungwon Na
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2017-07-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.