Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40119662›Full record

SynthesisWound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society

A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and other best practice recommendations for pressure injury risk assessment in the United States.

Anna Serafin, Sara Graziadio, Vladica Velickovic, Thurid-Christiane Milde, Jacqueline Dinnes, Alice Sitch, April Coombe, Laurie McNichol, David G Armstrong, Heather Lueck and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and other best practice recommendations for pressure injury risk assessment in the United States.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Pressure ulcer practice in European hospitals: a scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. 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

11 authors.

Anna SerafinEvidence Generation Department, HARTMANN GROUP, Heidenheim, Germany.
Sara GraziadioEvidence Generation Department, HARTMANN GROUP, Heidenheim, Germany.
Vladica VelickovicEvidence Generation Department, HARTMANN GROUP, Heidenheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7146-1267
Thurid-Christiane MildeEvidence Generation Department, HARTMANN GROUP, Heidenheim, Germany.
Jacqueline DinnesBiostatistics, Evidence Synthesis, Test Evaluation And Prediction Modelling (BESTEAM), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Alice SitchBiostatistics, Evidence Synthesis, Test Evaluation And Prediction Modelling (BESTEAM), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
April CoombeBiostatistics, Evidence Synthesis, Test Evaluation And Prediction Modelling (BESTEAM), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Laurie McNicholCone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
David G ArmstrongDepartment of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California (USC), USA.
Heather LueckMercy Hospital, Springfield, Missouri, USA.
Jan KottnerCharité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0750-3818

Funding

HARTMANN GROUP
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preventing pressure injuries (PIs) remains the most effective way to reduce their burden. A key element of prevention is the assessment of PI risk. The study aimed to investigate whether guidance documents relevant to the United States (US) advocated for specific risk assessment recommendations. We conducted a systematic review of guidance documents published between 2010 and 2024. Embase, Medline, Cinahl, and four key organisational websites were systematically searched to retrieve relevant articles. Two independent reviewers screened the articles for inclusion. One reviewer extracted the data, and a second reviewer checked all extracted data. Three reviewers assessed the guidance documents quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. A narrative synthesis was used to describe and summarise findings. Six clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and eight other best practice recommendations were included. The median scores of most AGREE II domains were higher for CPGs compared to other best practice recommendations. Risk assessment was consistently positioned as a critical first step in the prevention of PIs, emphasising its role in identifying at-risk individuals and informing targeted interventions. Although risk assessment was presented as a crucial step in PI risk prevention, there was no clear and unanimous recommendation for a specific risk assessment strategy across all guidance documents, either for the general population or for specific subgroups of patients in US healthcare settings. These findings suggest a need for national consensus on concepts, implementation, and language addressing PI risk assessment.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicPressure UlcerHumansRisk AssessmentUnited Statesbest practice recommendationclinical practice guidelineevidence‐based practicepressure injurypreventive health servicesrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID40119662
PMCPMC11929040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.