Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33558099›Full record

ArticleJournal of tissue viability2021

International comparison of pressure ulcer measures in long-term care facilities: Assessing the methodological robustness of 4 approaches to point prevalence measurement.

Mircha Poldrugovac, Michael Padget, Lisette Schoonhoven, Nicola D Thompson, Niek S Klazinga, Dionne S Kringos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of tissue viability, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Mircha PoldrugovacAmsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.poldrugovac@amsterdamumc.nl.
Michael PadgetIndependent Research Consultant Paris, France.
Lisette SchoonhovenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, 3584 CG, Utrecht, the Netherlands; School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom.
Nicola D ThompsonDivision of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, 30333, USA.
Niek S KlazingaAmsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dionne S KringosAmsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPressure ulcer indicators are among the most frequently used performance measures in long-term care settings. However, measurement systems vary and there is limited knowledge about the international comparability of different measurement systems. The aim of this analysis was to identify possible avenues for international comparisons of data on pressure ulcer prevalence among residents of long-term care facilities. MATERIAL AND

methodsA descriptive analysis of the four point prevalence measurement systems programs used in 28 countries on three continents was performed. The criteria for the description and analysis were based on the scientific literature on criteria for indicator selection, on issues in international comparisons of data and on specific challenges of pressure ulcer measurements.

resultsThe four measurement systems use a prevalence measure based on very similar numerator and denominator definitions. All four measurement systems also collect data on patient mobility. They differ in the pressure ulcer classifications used and the requirements for a head-to-toe resident examination. The regional or country representativeness of long-term care facilities also varies among the four measurement systems.

conclusionsMethodological differences among the point prevalence measurement systems are an important barrier to reliable comparisons of pressure ulcer prevalence data. The alignment of the methodologies may be improved by implementing changes to the study protocols, such as aligning the classification of pressure ulcers and requirements for a head-to-toe resident skin assessment. The effort required for each change varies. All these elements need to be considered by any initiative to facilitate international comparison and learning.

Indexed as

Pressure UlcerHumansLong-Term CarePrevalenceSkin CareBenchmarkingHealth careLong term careNursing homesPressure ulcerQuality indicatorsQuality of health care

Identifiers

PMID33558099
PMCPMC11000144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.