Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30967408›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Efficacy of pressure ulcer prevention interventions in adult intensive care units: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Yixiu Du, Fangqin Wu, Sai Lu, Wei Zheng, Huiying Wang, Ruming Chen, Xiaoying Lu, Yu Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Yixiu DuSchool of Nursing, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Fangqin WuSchool of Nursing, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Sai LuCollege of Health and Biomedicine, Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Wei ZhengSchool of Nursing, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Huiying WangSurgical Ward, Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Ruming ChenHeart Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiaoying LuHeart Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yu ZhangHeart Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Capital Medical University · CNBeijing Chao-Yang Hospital · CNBeijing Hua Xin Hospital · CNVictoria University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPressure ulcers (PUs) are associated with substantial health burden. Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at high risk for developing PU. In the absence of large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare commonly known interventions for preventing PU in ICUs, uncertainty remains around the best practice strategy for PU management in adult ICUs. This study, therefore, aims to identify the most effective interventions and combinations of interventions that prevent PU in adult ICU using systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search for all published and unpublished RCTs evaluating interventions to prevent PU compared with other PU prevention measures or with usual care in adult ICU. The primary outcomes are the incidence of PUs and PU severity in critically ill patients in ICU. The secondary outcomes include number of PUs per patient and intervention-related harms caused by the prevention intervention or intervention-related harms. All data extraction will be performed by at least two independent reviewers on the basis of a priori developed extraction form. We will evaluate the risk of bias of the included RCTs in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool, and assess the quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. A standard pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian NMA will be conducted to compare the efficacy of different PU prevention interventions. A surface under the cumulative ranking curve will be used to rank the probabilities of each prevention intervention for various outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not require the ethics approval as it is a review based on published studies. The findings of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. We anticipate that the results of the study will provide the evidence to inform clinicians and guideline developers on determining the best interventions for the prevention of PU in ICU patients. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018085562.

Indexed as

Intensive Care UnitsAdultCritical CareHumansNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicPressure UlcerSystematic Reviews as Topicintensive carenetwork meta-analysispressure ulcerpreventionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30967408
PMCPMC6500189
OpenAlexW2936845011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.