Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33630407›Full record

SynthesisNursing open2021

Predictive validity of the braden scale for pressure injury risk assessment in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Can Huang, Yuxia Ma, Chenxia Wang, Mengyao Jiang, Loretta Yuet Foon, Lin Lv, Lin Han

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nursing open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
39.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 132 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Can HuangEvidence-Based Nursing Center, School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3740-4872
Yuxia MaEvidence-Based Nursing Center, School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Chenxia WangNursing Department, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Mengyao JiangEvidence-Based Nursing Center, School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Loretta Yuet FoonEvidence-Based Nursing Center, School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Lin LvEvidence-Based Nursing Center, School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Lin HanEvidence-Based Nursing Center, School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7821-5253
Gansu Provincial Hospital · CNFirst Hospital of Lanzhou University · CNLanzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimPressure injuries are common adverse events in clinical practice, affecting the well-being of patients and causing considerable financial burden to healthcare systems. It is therefore essential to use reliable assessment tools to identify pressure injuries for early prevention. The Braden Scale is a widely used tool to assess pressure injury risk, but the literature is currently lacking in determining its accuracy. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the Braden Scale in assessing pressure injury risk.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsArticles published between 1973-2020 from periodicals indexed in the PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were selected. Two reviewers independently selected the relevant studies for inclusion. Data were analysed by the STATA 15.0 and the RevMan 5.3 software.

resultsIn total, 60 studies involving 49,326 individuals were eligible for this meta-analysis. The pooled SEN, SPE, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC were 0.78 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.82), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.66 to 0.78), 2.80 (95% CI: 2.30 to 3.50), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.26 to 0.35), 9.00 (95% CI: 7.00 to 13.00) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.79 to 0.85), respectively. Subgroup analyses indicated that the AUC was higher for prospective design (0.84, 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.87), mean age <60 years (0.87, 95% CI: 0.84 to 0.90), hospital (0.82, 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.86) and Caucasian population (0.86, 95% CI: 0.82 to 0.88). In addition, 18 was found to be the optimal cut-off value.

conclusionThe evidence indicated that the Braden Scale had a moderate predictive validity. It was more suitable for mean age <60 years, hospitalized patients and the Caucasian population, and the cut-off value of 18 might be used for the risk assessment of pressure injuries in clinical practice. However, due to the different cut-off values used among included studies, the results had a significant heterogeneity. Future studies should explore the optimal cut-off value in the same clinical environment.

Indexed as

Crush InjuriesPressure UlcerAdultHumansMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRisk Assessmentpressure ulcerrisk assessmentsensitivity and specificitysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33630407
PMCPMC8363405
OpenAlexW3132907976

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.