Value of pressure injury assessment scales for patients in the intensive care unit: Systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis

To review and examine the evidence of the value of pressure injury risk assessment scales in intensive care patients. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China Biomedical Literature Service System, VIP Database and CNIK from inception to February 2019. Two revi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Intensive & critical care nursing 2021-06, Vol.64, p.103009-103009, Article 103009
Main Authors: Zhang, Yi, Zhuang, Yiyu, Shen, Jiantong, Chen, Xianggping, Wen, Qiuyue, Jiang, Qi, Lao, Yuewen
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Bias
China
Critical Care
Critical Care Nursing
Diagnostic tests
Diagnostic Tests, Routine
Hospitals
Humans
Injuries
Intensive care
Intensive care unit
Intensive Care Units
Medical diagnosis
Meta-analysis
Patients
Pressure injury
Pressure Ulcer - diagnosis
Pressure ulcers
Quality assessment
Research methodology
Risk Assessment
Risk assessment scale
Systematic review
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To review and examine the evidence of the value of pressure injury risk assessment scales in intensive care patients. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China Biomedical Literature Service System, VIP Database and CNIK from inception to February 2019. Two reviewers independently assessed articles’ eligibility and risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-II (QUADAS-2). We used a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (HSROC) model to conduct the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Twenty-four studies were included, involving 16 scales and 15,199 patients in intensive care settings. Results indicated that the top four risk assessment scales were the Cubbin & Jackson Index (SEN = 0.84, SPE = 0.84, AUC = 0.90), the EVRUCI scale (SEN = 0.84, SPE = 0.68, AUC = 0.82), the Braden scale (SEN = 0.78, SPE = 0.61, AUC = 0.78), the Waterlow scale (SEN = 0.63, SPE = 0.46, AUC = 0.56). The Norton scale and the other eleven scales were tested in less than two studies and need to be further researched. The Braden scale, most frequently used in hospitals, is not the best risk assessment tool for critically ill patients. The Cubbin & Jackson Index has good diagnostic test accuracy. However, low quality of evidence and important heterogeneity were observed.
ISSN:0964-3397
1532-4036
DOI:10.1016/j.iccn.2020.103009