ArticleInternational wound journal2026
Evaluating Pressure Ulcer Risk With PURPOSE T in Acute Care-Inter-Rater Reliability Between Registered Nurses and Assistant Nurses.
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
Abstract
This study evaluated the inter-rater reliability and usability of the Swedish version of the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (PURPOSE T) when used by both registered nurses and assistant nurses. Although previous validation studies involved only registered nurses, assistant nurses often perform these assessments in practice. The study was conducted in three acute care hospitals in Sweden between October 2022 and September 2023, involving 117 patients. In pairs, eight registered nurses and eight assistant nurses independently assessed patients using PURPOSE T in paper format. The percentage agreement between the registered nurses and assistant nurses was 86.6% (n = 97/112). The corresponding simple kappa statistic was 0.69 (95% CI 0.55-0.84); the PABAK kappa statistic was 0.73 (95% CI 0.61-0.86). Both registered nurses and assistant nurses found the tool generally easy to use, though some items in Step 2 were reported as challenging. While the study indicated good inter-rater reliability and PURPOSE T was perceived as user-friendly by both groups, education and training should be prioritised when implementing the instrument in routine care to optimise its use. A digital application may provide more effective facilitation and guidance during the assessment compared with a paper-based version.
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.