Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36310417›Full record

SynthesisNursing open2023

A systematic review of predictive models for hospital-acquired pressure injury using machine learning.

You Zhou, Xiaoxi Yang, Shuli Ma, Yuan Yuan, Mingquan Yan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nursing open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Use of machine learning algorithms to construct models of symptom burden cluster risk in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

You ZhouDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1352-0211
Xiaoxi YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Shuli MaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0382-1149
Yuan YuanDepartment of Nursing, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Mingquan YanDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AIMS AND

objectivesTo summarize the use of machine learning (ML) for hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) prediction and to systematically assess the performance and construction process of ML models to provide references for establishing high-quality ML predictive models.

backgroundAs an adverse event, HAPI seriously affects patient prognosis and quality of life, and causes unnecessary medical investment. At present, the performance of various scales used to predict HAPIs is still unsatisfactory. As a new statistical tool, ML has been applied to predict HAPIs. However, its performance has varied in different studies; moreover, some deficiencies in the model construction process were observed in each study.

designSystematic review.

methodsRelevant articles published between 2010-2021 were identified in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase and CINHAL databases. Study selection was performed in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. The quality of the included articles was assessed using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool.

resultsTwenty-three studies out of 1793 articles were considered in this systematic review. The sample size of each study ranged from 149-75353; the prevalence of pressure injuries ranged from 0.5%-49.8%. ML showed good performance for HAPI prediction. However, some deficiencies were observed in terms of data management, data pre-processing and model validation.

conclusionsML, as a powerful decision-making assistance tool, is helpful for the prediction of HAPIs. However, existing studies have been insufficient in terms of data management, data pre-processing and model validation. Future studies should address these issues to establish ML models for HAPI prediction that can be widely used in clinical practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review highlights that ML is helpful in predicting HAPI; however, in the process of data management, data pre-processing and model validation, some deficiencies still need to be addressed. The ultimate goal of integrating ML into HAPI prediction is to develop a practical clinical decision-making tool. A complete and rigorous model construction process should be followed in future studies to develop high-quality ML models that can be applied in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Pressure UlcerHospitalsHumansMachine LearningPrognosisQuality of Lifemachine learningpredictionpressure injurypressure ulcersystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36310417
PMCPMC9912391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.