Observational studyJournal of advanced nursing2023
Assessment, diagnosis and treatment of peristomal skin lesions by remote imaging: An expert validation study.
Observational study in Journal of advanced nursing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of Peristomal Skin Alterations Using Convolutional Artificial Neural Networks.Nursing research and practice · 2026Article
- Progress and applications of infrared thermography in individuals with intestinal stomas: a scoping review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- The potential of virtual healthcare technologies to reduce healthcare services' carbon footprint.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Assessment, diagnosis and treatment of peristomal skin lesions by remote imaging: An expert validation study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevention and treatment of peristomal skin problems should be a priority for nurses caring for ostomates, even when the assessment of lesions must be done remotely.
objectiveTo measure the level of agreement on assessment, diagnosis and care indications for peristomal skin lesions using remote imaging among nurses in Spain.
designProspective observational multicentre study to assess the diagnostic validity and inter- and intraobserver agreement between nurses in peristomal skin lesions. Data were collected between March and October 2019. SETTINGS AND
participantsThe research sample consisted of a group of 39 nurses with expertise in the care of ostomates.
methodsA panel of experts established a list of 24 common signs/findings, 15 diagnostic options and 35 treatment approaches for peristomal skin lesions. Three expert stoma therapy nurses compiled the clinical cases, which they described thoroughly and documented with photographs. The 39 participating nurses evaluated the cases in two rounds to measure inter and intraobserver agreement.
resultsA high or very high level of agreement (κ > 0.61) was observed for the following signs: encrustation, nodules, mucocutaneous separation and varicose veins; for the following diagnoses: mucocutaneous dehiscence, allergic contact dermatitis, encrustation and varicose veins (caput medusae); for the following treatments: recommending a diet rich in vitamin C/blueberries, applying acetic acid dressings, applying cold and topical tacrolimus treatment.
conclusionsThe most easily identifiable lesions were those most prevalent and with visible signs. There was a lower level of agreement in identifying lesions for which photographs required additional information (laboratory data, description of signs and symptoms, type of diet and level of self-care). It is important to train nurses caring for ostomates to correctly describe ostomy-related lesions, which is important for nursing records, continuity of care and telehealth care.
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.