SynthesisJournal of clinical nursing2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Tools for Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical nursing, 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
AIMS AND
objectivesTo systematically evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of pressure injury risk assessment tools in critically ill adult patients through a network meta-analysis.
designSystematic review and network meta-analysis.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 2025. Studies reporting the sensitivity and specificity of the Braden, Waterlow, Norton, Cubbin & Jackson, COMHON, and machine learning-based tools in ICU patients were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.
results51 studies involving 30,246 patients were included. The Cubbin & Jackson scale demonstrated relatively higher diagnostic accuracy in the network meta-analysis (e.g., sensitivity 0.81, specificity 0.71), although direct pooled estimates showed a different trade-off (sensitivity 0.90, specificity 0.73). According to the results from network meta-analysis, the pooled diagnostic odds ratio and the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SORC) for Cubbin & Jackson was 11.64 and 0.74 respectively, but with wide credible intervals, indicating substantial uncertainty. Machine learning-based model and the COMHON scale also exhibited balanced performance, although estimates for COMHON were based on only three studies and should be interpreted cautiously. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies.
conclusionsThe Cubbin & Jackson scale may offer relatively better diagnostic accuracy for pressure injury risk assessment in critically ill adults compared with generic scales, possibly due to its inclusion of ICU-specific clinical indicators. However, indirect comparisons and wide uncertainty limit definitive conclusions. These findings support the use of context-specific assessment tools in the ICU, but head-to-head studies are needed to confirm any single tool as the most accurate.
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.