ArticleInternational wound journal2020
ISTAP classification for skin tears: Validation for Brazilian Portuguese.
Article in International wound journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of the Content of a Mobile Digital Board-Game Application, Constituting a Playful Tool for the Management of Friction Injuries.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Validation and Clinimetric Properties of Persian Version of the ISTAP Classification System.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Medical adhesive-related skin injury in cancer patients: A prospective cohort study.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2021Article
- ISTAP classification for skin tears: Validation for Brazilian Portuguese.International wound journal · 2020Article
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate interobserver reliability and the concurrent criterion validity of the adapted version of the International Skin Tear Advisory Panel (ISTAP) Skin Tear Classification System to Brazilian Portuguese. For the evaluation of interobserver reliability using the photograph database, 36 nurses classified 30 skin tears (STs) into three groups, according to its definitions (adapted version). For the evaluation through clinical application, 23 nurses classified 12 STs present in 8 thoracic and cardiovascular postoperative patients at a tertiary hospital in Sao Paulo, Brazil. For the data collection of patients, an enterostomal therapist nurse classified the ST found by simultaneously using the adapted ISTAP version and the Skin Tear Audit Research (STAR) Classification System to test the concurrent criterion validity. The average of 17.83 correct answers (SD = 5.03) resulted from 1080 photograph observations, with Fleiss κ = 0.279 (reasonable concordance level). The interobserver reliability in the clinical application resulted in a global correct answer percentage of 76.7% in 85 observations. The concurrent criterion validity was attested by the total correlation (r = 1) between ISTAP and STAR. The ISTAP classification for ST is a reliable instrument and also valid in Brazil, making it another option to be used in clinical practice.
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.