SynthesisNursing open2026
Predictive Models for Medical Adhesive-Related Skin Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Nursing open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo systematically evaluate existing prediction models for medical adhesive-related skin injury and assess their potential contribution to nurse-led risk assessment and preventive care planning.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Seven databases were searched from inception to 25 October 2025. Studies developing prediction models for medical adhesive-related skin injury in adults were assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to synthesize prevalence estimates, model discrimination and common predictors.
resultsTwelve studies comprising 14 prediction models were included. Reported area under the curve or C-index values ranged from 0.789 to 0.960. In the nine studies included in the discrimination meta-analysis, the pooled area under the curve was 0.87 (95% confidence interval: 0.84-0.90). All studies had a high overall risk of bias, and none performed external validation. The pooled prevalence of medical adhesive-related skin injury was 22.0% (95% confidence interval: 18.5%-25.4%). Age over 60 years, a history of medical adhesive-related skin injury, allergy history, edema, study-defined hypoproteinemia, and moist skin were associated with higher odds, whereas higher Braden Scale scores were associated with lower odds.
conclusionsExisting models are not ready for stand-alone clinical use because of their high risk of bias and lack of external validation. Further well-designed studies are needed to develop and externally validate clinically useful prediction models for medical adhesive-related skin injury. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: The identified factors may help nurses prioritise closer skin assessment, surveillance, and individualised preventive care. They should be considered within a comprehensive nursing assessment rather than used as a validated risk score or intervention threshold. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: None because this review used previously published evidence. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD420251179067.
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.