Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18646157›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008

Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers.

Zena E H Moore, Seamus Cowman

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Wound-care teams for preventing and treating pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Evidence-based treatment of chronic leg ulcers.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2011
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Do pressure ulcer risk assessment scales improve clinical practice?Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2010
    Article
  14. Decubitus ulcers: pathophysiology and primary prevention.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2010
    Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Zena E H MooreFaculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St Stephens Green, Dublin, Ireland, Dublin 15. zmoore@rcsi.ie
Seamus Cowman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPressure ulcer risk assessment is a component of the assessment process used to identify individuals at risk of developing a pressure ulcer. Use of a risk assessment tool is recommended by many international pressure ulcer prevention guidelines however it is not known whether using a risk assessment tool makes a difference to patient outcomes. A review was conducted to clarify the role of pressure ulcer risk assessment in clinical practice.

objectivesThe objective of this review was to determine whether using structured, systematic pressure ulcer risk assessment tools, in any health care setting, reduces the incidence of pressure ulcers. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (January 1966 to April Week 3, 2008); EMBASE (1974 to Week 17, 2008); CINAHL (1982 to April Week 4, 2008); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2008); The Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 29/4/2008). There were no restrictions on articles on the basis of language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of structured, systematic, pressure ulcer risk assessment tools with no structured pressure ulcer risk assessment, or with unaided clinical judgement, or RCTs comparing the use of different structured pressure ulcer risk assessment tools were considered for this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Titles and, where available, abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy were assessed by two authors independently for their eligibility. Full versions of potentially relevant studies were obtained and screened against the inclusion criteria by two authors independently. MAIN

resultsNo studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS'

conclusionsDespite the widespread use of risk assessment tools for the assessment of individuals' risk of developing pressure ulcers, no randomised trials exist that compare them with unaided clinical judgement or no risk assessment in terms of rates of pressure ulceration. Therefore, we cannot conclude whether the use of structured, systematic pressure ulcer risk assessment tools, in any health care setting, reduces the incidence of pressure ulcers. The effect of structured risk assessment tools on pressure ulcer incidence needs to be evaluated.

Indexed as

HumansPressure UlcerRisk Assessment

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.