ArticleJournal of research in nursing : JRN2018
Assessing pressure injury risk using a single mobility scale in hospitalised patients: a comparative study using case-control design.
Article in Journal of research in nursing : JRN, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Repositioning during Hospitalization and Prevention of Pressure Ulcers: a Narrative Review.Investigacion y educacion en enfermeria · 2024Review
- Prevalence of pressure injury on the medical wards of public general hospitals in Kuwait: a national cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Validation of the Helsinki University Hospital prevent pressure Injury Risk Assessment Tool: a prospective observational study.BMC nursing · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPressure injury is known to cause not only debilitating physical effects, but also substantial psychological and financial burdens. A variety of pressure injury risk assessment tools are in use worldwide, which include a number of factors. Evidence now suggests that assessment of a single factor, mobility, may be a viable alternative for assessing pressure injury risk.
aimsThe aim of this study was to ascertain whether using the Braden mobility subscale alone is comparable to the full Braden scale for predicting the development of pressure injury.
methodsThis study, a retrospective case-control design, was conducted in a large tertiary acute care hospital in Singapore. Medical records of 100 patients with hospital-acquired pressure injury were matched with 100 medical records of patients who had no pressure injury at a 1:1 ratio.
resultsPatients who were assessed using the Braden mobility subscale as having 'very limited mobility' or worse were 5.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.66-10.20) times more likely to develop pressure injury compared with those assessed as having 'slightly limited' mobility or 'no limitation'. Conversely, patients assessed using the Braden scale as having 'low risk' or higher were 3.35 (95% CI 1.77-6.33) times more likely to develop pressure injury compared with those assessed as 'no risk'. Using full model logistic regression analysis, the Braden mobility subscale was the only factor that was a significant predictor of pressure injury and it remained significant when analysed for the most parsimonious model using backward logistic regression.
conclusionsThese findings provide the empirical evidence that using the Braden mobility subscale alone as an assessment tool for predicting pressure injury development is comparable to using the full Braden scale. Use of this single factor would simplify pressure injury risk assessment and support its use within busy clinical settings.
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.