ArticleBMJ open2024
Risk factors of skin tear in older persons: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Summary of the Best Evidence for the Prevention and Management of Medical Adhesive-Related Skin Injuries in Patients with Tracheal Intubation.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Review
- Analysis of Barriers to Evidence Transformation and Countermeasures for MARSI Prevention in Tracheal Intubated Patients Based on the i-PARIHS Framework.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSkin tear (ST) will prolong the hospitalisation time of an older person, increase the cost of medical expenses and the difficulty in care for nursing staff, and seriously affect the quality of life of the older person. Early identification and intervention of the elderly at risk of ST are key factors in preventing the occurrence of ST in older persons. At present, risk factors for ST in older persons have not been systematically evaluated, let alone summarised to analyse risk factors for ST in older persons. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesise existing research on risk factors for ST in older populations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The protocol is being reported by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement. On 17 September 2023, we will start literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, Wan Fang Data Knowledge Service Platform, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. The language of the included literature is Chinese or English. Using RevMan V.5.4 software, we will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the final set of included studies to synthesise the data and draw meaningful conclusions. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality will be used to assess the quality of the literature. The ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not needed for this systematic review, as the study will not directly use information from human participants, and the data we use will be extracted from original studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Once the systematic review and meta-analysis have been completed, we will publish our study in an academic journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023460810.
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.