ArticleNursing in critical care2026
Comparison of the Validity and Reliability of Five Pressure Injury Risk Scales in Intensive Care.
Article in Nursing in critical care, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe lack of consensus on the best pressure injury (PI) risk assessment tools demonstrates the need for further comparative research to identify the most effective options for intensive care unit (ICU) populations.
aimThis study compared the predictive validity and reliability of five PI risk assessment tools in adult ICU patients. STUDY
designA prospective cohort study was conducted with patients aged ≥ 18 years, admitted to the ICUs for at least 24 h and without pre-existing PI. Five tools (Braden Scale, CALCULATE, Cubbin & Jackson, EVARUCI and Sunderland) were used daily to assess PI risk until either a PI developed or the participant was discharged, died or completed 21 days in the ICUs. The main outcome measures included area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, relative risk and reliability.
resultsOf the 150 participants, 40 (26.7%) developed PIs. None of the five tools demonstrated good predictive accuracy. AUC values ranged from 0.605 to 0.692 across the five tools, with none exceeding the predefined threshold of 0.70. Participants classified as high risk by Sunderland, Cubbin & Jackson and EVARUCI had a 3.0, 2.5 and 2.1 times higher risk, respectively, of developing a PI. Cubbin & Jackson was the only tool to achieve acceptable reliability values in Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's weighted kappa.
conclusionsHigh-risk classification using the Sunderland, Cubbin & Jackson and EVARUCI scales was more strongly associated with subsequent PI development than classification using the other tools. Reliability findings varied across parameters, with Cubbin & Jackson being the only tool to meet acceptable thresholds across all assessed reliability measures. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: PI assessment in ICU patients should integrate validated tools with clinical judgement to address patient-specific and device-related risk factors.
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.