Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41630936›Full record

ArticlePaediatrics & child health2026

Paediatric pressure injuries - a review and recommendations for hospital providers.

Adam Mosa, George Ho, Alan Rogers, Eduardo Gus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2026. 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.

Adam MosaDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
George HoDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
Alan RogersDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
Eduardo GusDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1662-5297

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Paediatric pressure injuries (PIs) are a serious constellation of wounds that can lead to additional suffering, lifelong scarring, increased risk of infection, and high costs to the healthcare system. The prevalence of paediatric PI in an inpatient setting is 1.4% and can be as high as 43% in critical care units. The most common causes of paediatric PIs are associated with pressure from prolonged immobility and medical devices. Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted to survey the current state of paediatric PI management for the purpose of providing healthcare providers with updated insight into PI management. Results: Compared to the adult population, there are unique differences in paediatric anatomy and physiology depending on age and weight that can affect the aetiology and location of PIs. There has also been a development of tools to assess paediatric PIs. Prompt risk assessment within 8 hours following admission with a structured risk assessment tool, such as the Braden QD, followed by thorough skin assessments at regularly spaced intervals, will aid in the detection and treatment of PIs. The optimization of skin health and the use of medical devices are also key to the prevention of PIs. Conclusion: This article reviews the unique differences of PIs in children and provides recommendations on prevention, care, and treatment.

Indexed as

Braden QDHospital-acquired pressure injuryMedical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI)Paediatric pressure injuries

Identifiers

PMID41630936
PMCPMC12861527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.