Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41541804›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of nursing studies advances2025

Assessment tools for the risk of pressure injury in children: A systematic review.

Faustine Dessi, Julien Valeille, Pascale Beloni, Jean Toniolo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Faustine DessiInserm U1094, IRD U270, Univ. Limoges, CHU Limoges, EpiMaCT - Epidemiology of chronic diseases in tropical zone, Institute of Epidemiology and Tropical Neurology, OmegaHealth, Limoges, France.
Julien ValeilleCHU Limoges, France.
Pascale BeloniCHU Limoges, France.
Jean TonioloCHU Limoges, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pressure injuries in pediatric patients are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and prolonged hospital stays, making the identification of effective risk assessment tools critical in clinical practice. Accurate risk assessment is essential in clinical practice. Although several assessment tools exist, their applicability and effectiveness vary across pediatric populations. Objective: To identify and evaluate tools designed to assess the risk of pressure injuries in children, focusing on their characteristics, validation populations, reliability, and applicability across different clinical contexts. Design: A systematic review was conducted. Methods: This systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42024527687) was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook. Comprehensive searches were performed in five databases-PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Embase-for studies published between January 2010 and March 2024. Eligible studies included those describing the development, use, or validation of pressure injury risk assessment tools in children. Two independent reviewers conducted the selection and appraisal process. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 and QAREL checklists, with general reference to COSMIN guidelines. Results: Of 964 records screened, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing research from 15 countries, with Brazil being the most represented. Studies focused on pediatric and neonatal intensive care units, general wards, and surgical units. Ten different risk assessment tools were identified, including the Braden Q, Braden QD, and Glamorgan scales. The Braden QD scale-an adaptation of the Braden Q including medical device-related risk-was the most frequently evaluated. Other tools, such as the Pediatric Pressure Ulcer Prediction and Evaluation Tool and the Braden Q+P, were specifically developed or adapted for pediatric and neonatal use. Conclusions: All identified tools demonstrated acceptable validity and inter-rater reliability. However, no single tool proved universally applicable across all pediatric contexts. The Braden QD, Braden Q, and Glamorgan scales emerged as the most comprehensive, particularly in intensive care settings, aligning with National and European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel recommendations. Further research is warranted to enhance tool accuracy and contextual adaptability across pediatric care environments. Guidelines: PRISMA.

Indexed as

ChildInjuryPediatricPressureScale

Identifiers

PMID41541804
PMCPMC12801159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.