ArticleBMJ open2025
Recommendations for nursing diagnoses for burn victims undergoing prolonged field care in China: a Delphi study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo construct a nursing diagnosis index system for burn patients under prolonged field care (PFC).
designA modified Delphi study.
setting13 class A tertiary hospitals and 2 universities.
participantsNine experts were selected for expert interview: (1) bachelor's degree or higher; (2) ≥10 years' experience in burn care, nursing quality management or health service management, including participation in ≥3 PFC operations; (3) intermediate or higher professional title; (4) willingness to participate. 22 experts were selected for expert consultation: (1) bachelor's degree or higher; (2) ≥3 years' nurse management experience with theoretical expertise in burn nursing diagnosis; participation in ≥3 major non-combat military operations; (3) intermediate or higher professional title; (4) commitment to complete consultations.
interventionsIncluding a two-stage process: (1) system construction: developed a preliminary index system using The North American Nursing Diagnosis Association international's framework, guided by US military '10 PFC Core Competencies' and UK military SHEEP VOMIT standards, via literature analysis and expert interviews. (2) Delphi refinement: conducted three Delphi rounds with 22 experts. Finalised indicators using Analytical Hierarchy Process to assign weights.
resultsThe burn PFC nursing diagnosis index system established in this study comprises 7 primary indicators, 18 secondary indicators and 44 tertiary indicators. The valid questionnaire response rate for the expert consultation reached 100%, with an expert authority coefficient of 0.85. After three rounds of the Delphi expert consultation, Kendall's coefficient of concordance (Kendall's W) for indicators at all levels ranged from 0.104 to 0.305 (p<0.001), indicating a convergence of expert opinions. Regarding weight distribution, the top three weighted primary indicators were Safety/Protection, Nutrition and Elimination/Exchange. The top three weighted secondary indicators were Risk of Physical Injury, Thermoregulation and Coping Responses. The top three weighted tertiary indicators were Risk for Electrolyte Imbalance, Impaired Gas Exchange and Hyperthermia.
conclusionThis systematic, scientific and rational index system provides a foundation for standardising burn PFC nursing plans, potentially enhancing care quality and efficiency in PFC settings.
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.