ArticleInternational wound journal2017
The development and testing of a skin tear risk assessment tool.
Article in International wound journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Skin tears and risk factors assessment: a systematic review on evidence-based medicine.International wound journal · 2018Pooled it
- Skin tears in older patients in intensive care units: A multicentre point prevalence study.Nursing in critical care · 2025Observational
- External validation of a predictive model for aged-related skin tears in Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV cohort.International wound journal · 2024Article
- Models for predicting skin tears: A comparison.International wound journal · 2020Article
- A risk model for the prediction of skin tears in aged care residents: A prospective cohort study.International wound journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to develop a reliable and valid skin tear risk assessment tool. The six characteristics identified in a previous case control study as constituting the best risk model for skin tear development were used to construct a risk assessment tool. The ability of the tool to predict skin tear development was then tested in a prospective study. Between August 2012 and September 2013, 1466 tertiary hospital patients were assessed at admission and followed up for 10 days to see if they developed a skin tear. The predictive validity of the tool was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. When the tool was found not to have performed as well as hoped, secondary analyses were performed to determine whether a potentially better performing risk model could be identified. The tool was found to have high sensitivity but low specificity and therefore have inadequate predictive validity. Secondary analysis of the combined data from this and the previous case control study identified an alternative better performing risk model. The tool developed and tested in this study was found to have inadequate predictive validity. The predictive validity of an alternative, more parsimonious model now needs to be tested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.