ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2018
Clinical evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE T).
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07193849 (Impact of Using Zinc Oxide Versus Moist Exposed Wound Ointment), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Impact of Using Zinc Oxide Versus Moist Exposed Wound Ointment (MEBO) in Treatment of Second Stage Pressure Ulcer: A Randomized Control Clinical Trial
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Pressure Ulcer Risk With PURPOSE T in Acute Care-Inter-Rater Reliability Between Registered Nurses and Assistant Nurses.International wound journal · 2026Article
- The impact of a risk assessment tool on hospital pressure injury prevalence and prevention: a quantitative pre-post evaluation.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Article
- Revealing the therapeutic properties of gut microbiota: transforming cancer immunotherapy from basic to clinical approaches.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2024Review
- Feasibility of PURPOSE T in clinical practice and patient participation-A mixed-method study.International wound journal · 2023Article
- Risk factors for hospital-acquired and community-acquired pressure injuries: a multicentre mixed case-control study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Risk factors and the potential of nomogram for predicting hospital-acquired pressure injuries.International wound journal · 2020Article
- Preventing pressure injuries in the emergency department: Current evidence and practice considerations.International wound journal · 2019Article
- Thyroxine (T4) may promote re-epithelialisation and angiogenesis in wounded human skin ex vivo.PloS one · 2019Article
- Clinical evaluation of a new pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE T).Journal of advanced nursing · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo test the psychometric properties and clinical usability of a new Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instrument including inter-rater and test-retest reliability, convergent validity and data completeness.
backgroundMethodological and practical limitations associated with traditional Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments, prompted a programme to work to develop a new instrument, as part of the National Institute for Health Research funded, Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (RP-PG-0407-10056).
designObservational field test.
methodFor this clinical evaluation 230 patients were purposefully sampled across four broad levels of pressure ulcer risk with representation from four secondary care and four community NHS Trusts in England. Blinded and simultaneous paired (ward/community nurse and expert nurse) PURPOSE-T assessments were undertaken. Follow-up retest was undertaken by the expert nurse. Field notes of PURPOSE-T use were collected. Data were collected October 2012-January 2013.
resultsThe clinical evaluation demonstrated "very good" (kappa) inter-rater and test-retest agreement for PURPOSE-T assessment decision overall. The percentage agreement for "problem/no problem" was over 75% for the main risk factors. Convergent validity demonstrated moderate to high associations with other measures of similar constructs.
conclusionThe PURPOSE-T evaluation facilitated the initial validation and clinical usability of the instrument and demonstrated that PURPOSE-T is suitable of use in clinical practice. Further study is needed to evaluate the impact of using the instrument on care processes and outcomes.
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.