ArticleInternational wound journal2026
Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a Medical Device-Related Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Scale.
Article in International wound journal, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical device-related pressure injuries are a significant and largely preventable patient safety problem, yet existing pressure injury risk scales do not adequately capture device-specific risk factors in adults. This methodological study developed and psychometrically evaluated a standardized risk assessment scale to identify medical device-related pressure injury risk in hospitalized adult patients. An initial item pool was generated from an extensive literature review and clinical expertise, and content validity was assessed by seven experts using the Davis technique (content validity index = 0.96). The scale was administered to 160 adults receiving at least one medical device in medical, surgical and oncology wards and intensive care units of a university hospital. Construct validity was evaluated using binary logistic regression, exploratory factor analysis, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, demonstrating strong discrimination (area under the curve = 0.844, 95% confidence interval 0.728-0.961) with an optimal cut-off score of 14.5 (sensitivity 70.6%, specificity 88.8%). Exploratory factor analysis of the final version of the MedRAS (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.792) revealed a two-factor structure (Device and Mechanical Factors; Patient and Tissue Factors) explaining 50.92% of the total variance, with all factor loadings above 0.30. The scale showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.80) and very good inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa = 0.806, p < 0.001). This device-focused scale may support early risk identification and targeted preventive nursing interventions, with potential to improve patient safety and quality of care in inpatient/critical care 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.