Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25224508›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2016

Reduced pressure for fewer pressure ulcers: can real-time feedback of interface pressure optimise repositioning in bed?

Lena Gunningberg, Cheryl Carli

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lena GunningbergDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Lena.gunningberg@pubcare.uu.se.
Cheryl CarliDepartment of Haematology, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Uppsala University · SEUppsala University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to (i) describe registered nurses' and assistant nurses' repositioning skills with regard to their existing attitudes to and theoretical knowledge of pressure ulcer (PU) prevention, and (ii) evaluate if the continuous bedside pressure mapping (CBPM) system provides staff with a pedagogic tool to optimise repositioning. A quantitative study was performed using a descriptive, comparative design. Registered nurses (n = 19) and assistant nurses (n = 33) worked in pairs, and were instructed to place two volunteers (aged over 70 years) in the best pressure-reducing position (lateral and supine), first without viewing the CBPM monitor and then again after feedback. In total, 240 positionings were conducted. The results show that for the same person with the same available pressure-reducing equipment, the peak pressure varied considerably between nursing pairs. Reducing pressure in the lateral position appeared to be the most challenging. Peak pressures were significantly reduced, based on visual feedback from the CBPM monitor. The number of preventive interventions also increased, as well as patients' comfort. For the nurses as a group, the knowledge score was 59·7% and the attitude score was 88·8%. Real-time visual feedback of pressure points appears to provide another dimension to complement decision making with respect to PU prevention.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMoving and Lifting PatientsAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursing Staff, HospitalPressurePressure UlcerSkin CareNurses' knowledge and attitudesPressure mappingPressure ulcerPrevention

Identifiers

PMID25224508
PMCPMC7950071
OpenAlexW1511563623

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.