ArticleInternational wound journal2026
Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of the Braden and Cubbin/Jackson Scales for Predicting Pressure Injury Development in an Adult Intensive Care Unit: A Prospective Cohort Study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated and compared the diagnostic accuracy of the Braden and Cubbin/Jackson Pressure Injury Risk Scales for predicting pressure injury development in adult ICU patients. In this prospective cohort study, 153 patients admitted to an adult ICU between September and November 2025 were assessed within 24 h using both scales and followed during their ICU stay. Diagnostic accuracy indices were calculated across cut-off points and optimal cut-offs were selected using the Youden J index. ROC curves were compared using the DeLong test. Precision-recall analysis and adjusted logistic regression analyses were also performed. Pressure injury developed in 37 patients (24.2%). The optimal Braden cut-off was ≤ 12, with sensitivity 43.2%, specificity 67.2%, PPV 29.6%, NPV 78.8%, LR+ 1.32, LR- 0.84 and Youden J 0.105. The optimal Cubbin/Jackson cut-off was ≤ 35, with sensitivity 73.0%, specificity 50.9%, PPV 32.1%, NPV 85.5%, LR+ 1.49, LR- 0.53 and Youden J 0.238. AUCs were 0.546 (95% CI: 0.439-0.653) and 0.605 (95% CI: 0.503-0.707), respectively; the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.187). Precision-recall analysis showed limited predictive performance and adjusted logistic regression analyses indicated that neither cut-off was a statistically significant independent predictor of pressure injury development (p > 0.05). Both scales showed limited discriminatory accuracy. Cubbin/Jackson performed numerically better, but not significantly so; therefore, both scales should support, rather than replace, comprehensive clinical judgement in intensive care nursing.
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.