Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39327058›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Impact of the degree of synergy between patient and nurse perceptions on the clinical outcome of pressure injury prevention: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol.

Irhad Trozic, Lisa Fischer, Stefanie Deckert, Kerstin Gmeinwieser

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 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Irhad TrozicDepartment for Digitalization and Nursing Science, University Hospital Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0002-1387-2417
Lisa FischerDepartment for Digitalization and Nursing Science, University Hospital Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4198-1389
Stefanie DeckertCenter for Evidence-Based Healthcare, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany Stefanie.Deckert@ukdd.de.
Kerstin GmeinwieserDepartment for Digitalization and Nursing Science, University Hospital Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPressure injuries are a common and significant concern in clinical practice, often serving as a vital quality indicator. While (clinical) practice guidelines have been established to offer recommendations for mitigating hospital-acquired pressure injuries, adherence among stakeholders remains inconsistent. The subjective perceptions of stakeholders, such as patients and nurses, may impede adherence to pressure ulcer prevention guidelines, potentially reducing the effectiveness of these interventions. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to comprehensively understand this influence. Therefore, this review aims to offer a broader understanding of how the perspectives of patients and nurses engaged in pressure injury prevention affect the effectiveness of specific interventions for pressure ulcer management. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a convergent, segregated mixed-methods systematic review and perform a narrative synthesis with a focus on evidence of the effectiveness of pressure injury prevention strategies and patient and nurse perceptions. Our search will encompass several databases, including the 'Centre for Reviews and Dissemination' (CRD) Database, Medline (via Ovid), CINAHL (via Ebsco) and Scopus (via Elsevier). Additionally, we will cross-check reference lists from all included systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full texts and extract data from the included studies. The quality of methodology of systematic reviews will be assessed using 'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2' (AMSTAR 2) and the risk of bias using 'Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews' (ROBIS). Qualitative studies will undergo critical appraisal using appropriate Joanna Briggs checklists. If it is feasible to pool data from included studies, we will synthesise them accordingly, using meta-analysis for quantitative reviews and meta-aggregation for qualitative studies. The results from both qualitative and quantitative analyses will be compared with derive new recommendations for healthcare practice aimed at enhancing the quality of care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required due to the nature of this intended review. The results of this review will be disseminated through publications, reports and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023438792.

Indexed as

Pressure UlcerHumansNursesResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as Topicnursing carequalitative researchsystematic reviewwound management

Identifiers

PMID39327058
PMCPMC11429438

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.