ArticleInternational wound journal2018
Utility of a sensor-based technology to assist in the prevention of pressure ulcers: A clinical comparison.
Article in International wound journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review on the impact of sub-epidermal moisture assessments on pressure ulcer/injury care delivery pathways.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Innovative Technologies: Optimizing Nursing Practice.Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN · 2026Article
- Digital and Smart Technologies for Early Pressure Injury Detection and Prevention in Stroke and Mobility-Impaired Patients: A Scoping Review.Nursing research and practice · 2026Review
- Recommendations and Best Practices for the Risk Assessment of Pressure Injuries in Adults Admitted to Intensive Care Units: A Scoping Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
- A relationship analysis of the effects of COVID-19 isolation on pressure sores in a tertiary hospital.International wound journal · 2024Article
- [Research advances on application of sub-epidermal moisture scanner in monitoring tissue viability of early pressure injuries].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2024Article
- Modelling the cost-effectiveness of subepidermal moisture measurement as part of a process of assessment and intervention to prevent hospital-acquired pressure ulcers.International wound journal · 2023Article
- Sub epidermal moisture measurement and targeted SSKIN bundle interventions, a winning combination for the treatment of early pressure ulcer development.International wound journal · 2023Observational
- Biomarkers for the early detection of pressure ulcers in the intensive care setting: A comparison between sub-epidermal moisture measurements and interleukin-1α.International wound journal · 2023Observational
- A blinded clinical study using a subepidermal moisture biocapacitance measurement device for early detection of pressure injuries.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2020Article
- Utility of a sensor-based technology to assist in the prevention of pressure ulcers: A clinical comparison.International wound journal · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Detection of subcutaneous tissue damage before it is visible can trigger early intervention and decrease hospital-acquired pressure ulcer (HAPU) rates. The objective of this two-phase study was to evaluate the clinical utility of the Sub-Epidermal Moisture (SEM) Scanner (Bruin Biometrics (BBI), LLC), a hand-held device that assesses increases in interstitial fluid or subepidermal moisture, indicating early tissue damage. Phase 1: Patients were provided standard-of-care risk assessment and interventions and were scanned with the SEM Scanner, but the resulting SEM scores were not used to determine interventions. This gave a baseline pressure ulcer incidence rate. Phase 2: This phase is the same as Phase 1 except the resulting SEM scores were used in conjunction with risk assessment scores to determine appropriate interventions and care planning. In Phase 1, 12 of the 89 subjects or 13.5% developed visible pressure ulcers-4 Stage I's, 6 Stage II's, 1 Stage III, and 1 deep tissue injury. In Phase 2, 2 of the 195 subjects or 1.0% developed visible pressure ulcers-1 Stage I and 1 Stage II. Patients in Phase 2 were more incontinent, less mobile, and had longer lengths of stay than those in Phase 1. Use of the Scanner resulted in a 93% decrease in HAPU. No deep injuries developed in Phase 2.
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.