ArticleBMC surgery2025
The accuracy of the risk assessment scale for pressure ulcers in adult surgical patients: a network meta-analysis.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nurses' Insights on the Braden Scale and Their Vision for Artificial Intelligence Innovations: A Mixed Methods Study.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- Impact of Mattress Use on Sacral Interface Pressure in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effects of different nursing interventions for intraoperative acquired pressure injuries: a network meta-analysis.BMC nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to synthesize existing evidence regarding the accuracy of different scales to assess the risk of intraoperative acquired pressure injury (IAPI), thus providing guidance for the accurate clinical screening of IAPI risk and helping to prevent and reduce the occurrence of IAPI.
methodsWe searched the following electronic databases to identify relevant studies on scales to assess the risk of IAPIs among adults: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, the WanFang Database, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Two authors independently screened the literature, evaluated the quality of the included studies, and extracted the data. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to rate the quality of evidence. ANOVA was performed via Stata and R software to implement diagnostic network meta-analysis via the Bayesian method to evaluate the predictive power of the dominance index.
resultsA total of 24 studies (6721 patients) were included, and the incidence of IAPIs was 12.30% (827/6721). Six IAPI risk assessment tools were used, and their rankings on the basis of the Bayesian dominance index were as follows: the ELPO Scale, 3.12 (95% CI: 0.14, 9); the Norton Scale, 2.63 (95% CI: 0.14, 11); the Waterlow Scale, 2.44 (95% CI: 0.14, 7); the Munro Scale, 2.39 (95% CI: 0.20, 7); the Scott Triggers tool, 1.55 (95% CI: 0.11, 5); and the Braden Scale, 0.36 (95% CI: 0.09, 3).
conclusionsWe found that the ELPO Scale has good diagnostic test accuracy, and it is recommended that clinical workers prioritize the use of this scale in assessing the risk of pressure injuries among surgical patients, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of risk assessment for pressure injuries among surgical patients.
trial registrationThis study has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023470664).
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.