SynthesisNursing open2023
A systematic review of predictive models for hospital-acquired pressure injury using machine learning.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Machine learning-based prediction models for pressure injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review of predictive models for hospital-acquired pressure injury using machine learning.Nursing open · 2023Pooled it
- Pressure Injury Risk Assessment in Nursing Practice: A Head-to-Head Comparison of the Braden Scale and Machine Learning Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Early prediction of pressure injury risk in hospitalized patients using supervised machine learning models based on nursing records.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Pressure Injury Prediction in Intensive Care Units Using Artificial Intelligence: A Scoping Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
- Optimization and advances in negative pressure wound therapy for the management of necrotizing fasciitis in the upper limb.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Risk prediction tools for pressure injury occurrence: an umbrella review of systematic reviews reporting model development and validation methods.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2025Review
- Implementable Prediction of Pressure Injuries in Hospitalized Adults: Model Development and Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- An AdaBoost-based algorithm to detect hospital-acquired pressure injury in the presence of conflicting annotations.Computers in biology and medicine · 2024Article
- Risk predictions of hospital-acquired pressure injury in the intensive care unit based on a machine learning algorithm.International wound journal · 2023Article
- 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
- Enhancing clinical reliability in pressure injury prediction: A conformal prediction approach with machine learning models.Digital healthArticle
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
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
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.