ArticleJournal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society
Identifying Candidate Predictors of Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries among Adult, Medical-Surgical Patients Using Clinical Expert Knowledge: A Delphi Study.
Article in Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society. 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.
- Multifactorial Risk Assessment of Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries Among High-Risk Patients: A Case-Control Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to identify clinically important candidate predictors of hospital-acquired pressure injuries among adult, medical-surgical patients.
designModified Delphi technique.
methodsInterdisciplinary clinicians were recruited for the expert panel, and multiple rounds were administered as electronic questionnaires using a modified Delphi approach. The opening round was informed by a literature review that was used to extract candidate predictors from prognostic model development studies of hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI). The panel evaluated clinical concepts by answering either "Yes" or "No" to whether each concept was "important" in the assessment of HAPI risk and categorized the concept as a predisposing or precipitating factor.
resultsThe panel comprised 16 clinicians (8 physical/occupational therapists, 7 registered nurses, and 1 physician) from 2 large academic health care centers located in the US (Florida and California). The Delphi study comprised 3 rounds, with an overall attrition rate of 6.25%. The panel evaluated the clinical importance of 205 concepts that described HAPI risk. More than half of the panel agreed that 132 (64%) concepts were clinically "important," including 99 (75%) predisposing factors and 33 (25%) precipitating factors. Thirteen (6%) concepts reached 100% agreement.
conclusionVariable selection is a key component of prognostic model development study. Based on expert recommendations that highlight the use of clinical expertise in variable selection, we conducted a rigorous consensus study to gather feedback from clinicians who were experts in assessing, preventing, and treating pressure injuries. The final compilation of 132 "important" concepts provides a foundation for designing new or refining existing HAPI risk assessment tools. Future research should focus on identifying which concepts are valid predictors of HAPI and integrating them into standardized risk assessment tools.
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.