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.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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 SocietyPooled it
- What is known about pressure injury prevention and management approaches among individuals with mobility impairments participating in disability sport? A scoping review.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2026Review
- Clinical Assessment of Medical Device-Related Pressure Injury Risk: Profiling Risk Levels in Patients Using Medical Devices.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Burden and Determinants of Pressure Injuries in Adult Hospitalized Patients in Oman: A Multicenter Epidemiological Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pressure ulcer practice in European hospitals: a scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of an Educational Intervention on Medical Device-Related Pressure Injury Prevention for Registered Nurses: A Single-Group Quasi-Experimental Pre-Post Intervention Trial.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Prevention and Care of Pressure Ulcers in Long-Term Bedridden Adult and Older Adult Patients in the Community: A Systematic Review.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Review
- Relationship Between the Nurse-Patient Ratio and Adverse Events in Conventional Hospitalization Units in a Third-Level Hospital.Journal of nursing management · 2025Observational
- Enhancing clinical reliability in pressure injury prediction: A conformal prediction approach with machine learning models.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
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
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.