ArticleInternational wound journal2024
External validation of a predictive model for aged-related skin tears in Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV cohort.
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- External validation of a predictive model for aged-related skin tears in Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV cohort.International wound journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Older Australians are at increased risk of skin tears with the risk not always recognised or the injury able to be prevented. This study externally validated Rayner et al. (2019) Skin Tear Risk Prediction Model in an independent aged cohort with a Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV from across multiple residential-care sites, over a 6-month period. A total of 362 individuals aged between 65 and 102.5 years completed the study. In all, 165-residents sustained one or more skin tears. Logistic regression analysis was conducted of the five variables (gender, previous history of skin tears, previous history of falls, purpura and solar elastosis) identified in the skin tear model. The skin tear model provided 'good' to nearly 'very good discrimination' for correctly classifying residents at-risk or not-at-risk (area under the curve of 0.799 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.75-0.84]). The skin tear model correctly predicted 75.8% (sensitivity) of participants with skin tears and 71.6% (specificity) of residents without skin tears. The model demonstrated it could work as a screening tool to identify older individuals at risk of skin tears and would benefit clinical practice as it was easy to use, was reproducible, and had good accuracy across aged-care residents with a Fitzpatrick skin type I-IV.
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.