ArticleSpinal cord2015
Lifestyle risk factors for pressure ulcers in community-based patients with spinal cord injuries in Japan.
Article in Spinal cord, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- YOLO-Based Deep Learning Model for Pressure Ulcer Detection and Classification.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Pressure Ulcer in Trauma Patients: A Higher Spinal Cord Injury Level Leads to Higher Risk.The journal of the American College of Clinical Wound Specialists · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designCase-control study.
objectivesTo identify daily living-related risk factors for pressure ulcer (PU) occurrence in community-living patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). To determine whether seat pressure influences PU occurrence, and how often patients with SCI perform pressure relief activities while living in the community.
settingKanagawa Rehabilitation Hospital, Kanagawa, Japan.
methodsThirty-one patients admitted to this hospital for PU treatment were included in the case (PU) group. Thirty outpatients who did not have PUs at the time of the study, and had lived without PUs for at least a year, were included in the control (No PU) group. Patients were interviewed about lifestyle-related PU risk factors and a pressure-mapping system was used to measure interface pressure (IP) on their wheelchair seat. The No PU group patients recorded their daily activities and pressure relief maneuvers for 1 week.
resultsEight lifestyle factors and one risk assessment scale significantly differed between groups. Three factors showed significant odds ratios by logistic regression. IP did not significantly differ between groups. The self-counted number of pressure relief maneuvers (median (25th-75th percentile)) performed per hour in the No PU group was 2.5 (0.7-4.3) and including transfer and urination was 3.5 (2.0-5.3).
conclusionWe identified potential PU risk factors related to lifestyle. The scores of one risk assessment scale were also associated with PU risk. Our results did not suggest an IP damage threshold. Patients in the No PU group performed pressure relief maneuvers, including related activities, approximately once every 17 min.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25665536What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.