ArticleInternational wound journal2024
Evaluating the efficacy of standardized pressure ulcer management protocols in the prevention of pressure injuries among patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures.
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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.
- Trend analysis of pressure ulcers in adults 60 years and older from 1990 to 2021 using jointpoint regression and Bayesian age period cohort models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- RETRACTION: Evaluating the Efficacy of Standardized Pressure Ulcer Management Protocols in the Prevention of Pressure Injuries Among Patients Undergoing Neurosurgical Procedures.International wound journal · 2025Article
- Evaluating the efficacy of standardized pressure ulcer management protocols in the prevention of pressure injuries among patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures.International wound journal · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Nurses' attitudes, behaviors, and barriers toward pressure ulcer prevention in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-04-02Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pressure injuries are a significant concern for patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures due to prolonged immobility and the complexity of care. This study evaluates the efficacy of standardized pressure ulcer management protocols in preventing pressure injuries and enhancing patient care in a neurosurgical context. A comprehensive retrospective analysis was conducted at a single institution from December 2020 to December 2023, comparing 50 patients who received standardized pressure ulcer management (intervention group) with 50 patients who received conventional care (control group). The study assessed the incidence of pressure ulcers, patient comfort levels using the Kolcaba Comfort Scale and sleep quality using the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software, version 27.0, applying t-tests and chi-square tests as appropriate. The intervention group exhibited a significantly lower incidence of pressure ulcers at all measured time points post-surgery compared to the control group. Patient comfort levels in the intervention group were consistently higher across psychological, environmental, physiological and socio-cultural domains. Sleep quality metrics, including sleep depth, latency to sleep onset and overall sleep quality, were significantly improved in the intervention group. The implementation of standardized pressure ulcer management protocols in neurosurgical care significantly reduces the incidence of pressure injuries, enhances patient comfort and improves sleep quality. These findings highlight the importance of adopting structured care protocols to improve postoperative outcomes and patient well-being in neurosurgical settings.
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.