Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Intensive Crit Care Nurs ; 64: 103009, 2021 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33640238

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To review and examine the evidence of the value of pressure injury risk assessment scales in intensive care patients. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China Biomedical Literature Service System, VIP Database and CNIK from inception to February 2019. Two reviewers independently assessed articles' eligibility and risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-II (QUADAS-2). We used a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (HSROC) model to conduct the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. RESULT: Twenty-four studies were included, involving 16 scales and 15,199 patients in intensive care settings. Results indicated that the top four risk assessment scales were the Cubbin & Jackson Index (SEN = 0.84, SPE = 0.84, AUC = 0.90), the EVRUCI scale (SEN = 0.84, SPE = 0.68, AUC = 0.82), the Braden scale (SEN = 0.78, SPE = 0.61, AUC = 0.78), the Waterlow scale (SEN = 0.63, SPE = 0.46, AUC = 0.56). The Norton scale and the other eleven scales were tested in less than two studies and need to be further researched. CONCLUSION: The Braden scale, most frequently used in hospitals, is not the best risk assessment tool for critically ill patients. The Cubbin & Jackson Index has good diagnostic test accuracy. However, low quality of evidence and important heterogeneity were observed.


Assuntos
Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Úlcera por Pressão , Humanos , China , Cuidados Críticos , Enfermagem de Cuidados Críticos , Úlcera por Pressão/diagnóstico , Medição de Risco
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA