ArticleRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2023
Risk assessment instruments for pressure ulcer in adults in critical situation: a scoping review.
Article in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07575581 (From Translation to Validation), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
From Translation to Validation: Psychometric Evaluation of the EVARUCI Scale in Turkish Intensive Care Units
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the Validity and Reliability of Five Pressure Injury Risk Scales in Intensive Care.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
- Turkish Translation and Cultural Adaptation, Validity and Reliability of the CALCULATE Pressure Injury Risk Scale in Intensive Care Unit Patients.Nursing open · 2026Observational
- Recommendations and Best Practices for the Risk Assessment of Pressure Injuries in Adults Admitted to Intensive Care Units: A Scoping Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
- Pressure Injury Prediction in Intensive Care Units Using Artificial Intelligence: A Scoping Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
- Risk Assessment Scale for the Development of Medical Adhesive-related Skin Injuries.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto map the instruments for risk assessment of pressure ulcers in adults in critical situation in intensive care units; identify performance indicators of the instrument, and the appreciation of users regarding the instruments' use/limitations.
methoda scoping review. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews in the writing of the study. We carried out the searches in the EBSCOhost search tool for 8 databases, resulting in 1846 studies, of which 22 studies compose the sample.
resultswe identified two big instrument groups: generalist [Braden, Braden (ALB), Emina, Norton-MI, RAPS, and Waterlow]; and specific (CALCULATE, Cubbin & Jackson, EVARUCI, RAPS-ICU, Song & Choi, Suriaidi and Sanada, and COMHON index). Regarding the predictive value, EVARUCI and CALCULATE presented better results for performance indicators. Concerning appreciation/limitations indicated by users, we highlight the CALCULATE scale, followed by EVARUCI and RAPS-ICU, although they still need future adjustments.
conclusionthe mapping of the literature showed that the evidence is sufficient to indicate one or more instruments for the risk assessment of pressure ulcers for adults in critical situation in intensive care units. (1) The risk assessment instrument must be applied to the patient's specificities. (2) The instruments are divided into two groups: generalist and specific. (3) The EVARUCI and CALCULATE instruments presented better results. (4) The EVARACI presented better results in terms of performance indicators. (5) The CALCULATE highlights itself for being recent scale, appropriate, simple, and easy to use.
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.