ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2021
Predictive risk scales for development of pressure ulcers in pediatric patients admitted to general ward and intensive care unit.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2021. 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.
- Assessment tools for the risk of pressure injury in children: A systematic review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Review
- Perceived barriers and facilitators to preventing hospital-acquired pressure injury in paediatrics: A qualitative analysis.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- The prediction model for intraoperatively acquired pressure injuries in orthopedics based on the new risk factors: a real-world prospective observational, cross-sectional study.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMore than ten special scales are available to predict the risk of pressure ulcers in children. However, the performances of those scales have not yet been compared in China.
aimTo compare the Waterlow, Braden Q, and Glamorgan scales, and identify more suitable pressure ulcer evaluation scale for the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).
methodsTrained nurses used the Waterlow, Braden Q, and Glamorgan scales to assess pediatric patients at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital (China) within 24 h of admission from May 2017 to December 2020 in two stages. Skin examination was carried out to identify pressure ulcers every 3 d for 3 wk.
resultsThe incidence of pressure ulcers was 3/28 (10.7%) in the PICU and 5/314 (1.6%) in the general pediatric ward. For children in the general ward, the Waterlow, Braden Q, and Glamorgan scales had comparable area under the operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.870, 0.924, and 0.923, respectively, and optimal cut-off values of 14, 14, and 29 points. For PICU, the Waterlow, Braden Q, and Glamorgan scales had slightly lower AUC of 0.833, 0.733, and 0.800, respectively, and optimal cut-off values of 13, 16, and 27 points. Braden Q demonstrated a satisfactory specificity, and during the second stage of the study for PICU patients, the AUC of the Braden Q scale was 0.810, with an optimal cut-off value of 18.35 points.
conclusionThe Waterlow, Braden Q, and Glamorgan scales have comparable performance, while the Braden Q scale demonstrates a better specificity and can be successfully used by pediatric nurses to identify patients at high risk of pressure ulcers in PICU.
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.