Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38594078›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Predicting pressure injury risk in hospitalised patients using machine learning with electronic health records: a US multilevel cohort study.

William V Padula, David G Armstrong, Peter J Pronovost, Suchi Saria

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and other best practice recommendations for pressure injury risk assessment in the United States.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Risk Profiles in Hospitalized Adults Based on Functional Capacity, Pressure Injury Risk, and Fall Risk: A Cluster and Multiple Correspondence Analysis.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2026
    Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors.

William V PadulaDepartment of Pharmaceutical & Health Economics, University of Southern California Mann School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Los Angeles, CA, USA padula@usc.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1161-6954
David G ArmstrongThe Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1887-9175
Peter J PronovostUniversity Hospitals of Cleveland, Shaker Heights, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9740-3775
Suchi SariaDepartment of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University Whiting School of Engineering, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7667-5210

Funding

Mentored Career DevelopmentKL2TR001854 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Elizabeth Rhea Erwin Burner, Amy Elizabeth West · 2016 to 2026
$9.0M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001854
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo predict the risk of hospital-acquired pressure injury using machine learning compared with standard care.

designWe obtained electronic health records (EHRs) to structure a multilevel cohort of hospitalised patients at risk for pressure injury and then calibrate a machine learning model to predict future pressure injury risk. Optimisation methods combined with multilevel logistic regression were used to develop a predictive algorithm of patient-specific shifts in risk over time. Machine learning methods were tested, including random forests, to identify predictive features for the algorithm. We reported the results of the regression approach as well as the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for predictive models.

settingHospitalised inpatients.

participantsEHRs of 35 001 hospitalisations over 5 years across 2 academic hospitals.

main outcome measureLongitudinal shifts in pressure injury risk.

resultsThe predictive algorithm with features generated by machine learning achieved significantly improved prediction of pressure injury risk (p<0.001) with an area under the ROC curve of 0.72; whereas standard care only achieved an area under the ROC curve of 0.52. At a specificity of 0.50, the predictive algorithm achieved a sensitivity of 0.75.

conclusionsThese data could help hospitals conserve resources within a critical period of patient vulnerability of hospital-acquired pressure injury which is not reimbursed by US Medicare; thus, conserving between 30 000 and 90 000 labour-hours per year in an average 500-bed hospital. Hospitals can use this predictive algorithm to initiate a quality improvement programme for pressure injury prevention and further customise the algorithm to patient-specific variation by facility.

Indexed as

Pressure UlcerAgedCohort StudiesElectronic Health RecordsHumansMachine LearningMedicareRetrospective StudiesROC CurveUnited StatesElectronic Health RecordsHealth informaticsNursing CareWOUND MANAGEMENT

Identifiers

PMID38594078
PMCPMC11146395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.