Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30734477›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2019

Using the Braden subscales to assess risk of pressure injuries in adult patients: A retrospective case-control study.

Ellene Lim, Zubaidah Mordiffi, Han S J Chew, Violeta Lopez

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and other best practice recommendations for pressure injury risk assessment in the United States.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
    Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Chronic wounds.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Identifying Candidate Predictors of Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries among Adult, Medical-Surgical Patients Using Clinical Expert Knowledge: A Delphi Study.Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society
    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

4 authors.

Ellene LimNursing Department, National University Hospital, Singapore.
Zubaidah MordiffiThe Singapore Centre for Evidence Based Nursing, Nursing Department, National University Hospital, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3005-3088
Han S J ChewThe Nethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4209-1647
Violeta LopezAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8844-0331

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the pressure injury risk predictability between the individual Braden subscales and the total Braden scale in adult inpatients in Singapore. A retrospective 1:1 case-control design was used from a sample of 199 patient medical records. Clinical data were collected from a local university hospital's medical records database. The results showed that, among the six subscales, the activity subscale was the most sensitive and specific in predicting pressure injury (PI). However, the overall results showed that the Braden scale remained the most predictive of PI development in comparison with the individual subscales. The study also found that, among the Singaporean patients, the Braden cut-off score for PI risk was 17 compared with the current cut-off score of 18. Therefore, it may be relevant for local tertiary hospitals to review their respective Braden cut-off scores as the study results indicate an over-prediction of PI risk, which leads to unnecessary utilisation of resources. The hospital may also consider developing a PI prevention bundle comprising commonly used preventive interventions when at least one Braden subscale reflects a suboptimal score.

Indexed as

Severity of Illness IndexAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPressure UlcerPsychometricsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentSingaporeBraden scaleBraden subscalespressure injuryretrospective studyrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID30734477
PMCPMC7948767

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.