ArticleNursing open2025
Characteristics of Patients With Community-Acquired Pressure Injuries.
Article in Nursing open, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aim(1) To classify patients with community-acquired pressure injury (CAPI) according to the risk factors of PI and to assess validity of the classified groups. (2) To clarify characteristics of each group for CAPI prevention and care.
designThis study is designed to classify CAPI patients into clusters based on a retrospective study of medical records, followed by cluster analysis and description of each cluster's characteristics.
methodsRisk factors and status of CAPI, as well as discharge destination, were investigated based on 1 year's worth of medical records of patients with CAPI on hospital admission during 2018-2019. After calculating descriptive statistics, cluster analysis was conducted by Ward's method of Euclidean distance referring to risk factors of PI. Lastly, each of the defined clusters underwent multiple comparisons.
resultsFrom 324 patients with CAPI, 272 patients were selected as the study subjects, due to availability of sufficient information regarding risk factors of PI. After classification into three groups, data were interpreted by Euclidean distance and comparison between 'attribute and risk factors of PI' and 'PI and destinations after discharge'. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients with CAPI were classified into three clusters and validity of the classification was assessed. Patients who had 'maintained ADL', as well as cognitive status, were expected to be capable of self-care and self-management. Patients with 'low ADL' were characterised by insufficient self-care or home care resulting in having CAPI and would require aged care service. Patients who were at 'very high risk' of having PI were characterised by incurring significant burden on caregivers and need of medical services that prospects terminal care.
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.