首页> 外文期刊>International journal of nursing studies >Validation and clinical impact of paediatric pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: A systematic review
【24h】

Validation and clinical impact of paediatric pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: A systematic review

机译:儿科压疮风险评估量表的验证和临床影响:系统评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Pressure ulcer risk assessment using an age-appropriate, valid and reliable tool is recommended for clinical paediatric practice. Objectives: (1) What PU risk scales for children currently exist? (2) What is the diagnostic accuracy of their scores? (3) Are the scores reliable and what is the degree of agreement? (4) What is the clinical impact of risk scale scores in paediatric practice? Design: Systematic review. Data sources: MEDLINE (1950 to December 2010), EMBASE (1989 to December 2010), CINAHL (1982 to December 2010), reference lists. Review methods: Two reviewers independently screened databases, selected and evaluated articles and studies. Diagnostic accuracy, reliability/agreement, and experimental studies investigating the performance and clinical impact of PU risk scale scores in the paediatric population (0-18 years) were included. PU development was used as reference standard for diagnostic accuracy studies. Methodological quality of the validity and reliability studies was assessed based on the QUADAS and QAREL checklists. Results: The search yielded 1141 hints. Finally, 15 publications describing or applying 12 paediatric pressure ulcer risk scales were included. Three of these scales (Neonatal Skin Risk Assessment Scale for Predicting Skin Breakdown, Braden Q Scale, Burn Pressure Skin Risk Assessment Scale) were investigated in prospective validation studies. Empirical evidence about interrater reliability and agreement is available for four instruments (Neonatal Skin Risk Assessment Scale for Predicting Skin Breakdown, Starkid Skin Scale, Glamorgan Scale, Burn Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale). No studies were identified investigating the clinical impact. Conclusions: Sound empirical evidence about the performance of paediatric pressure ulcer risk assessment scales is lacking. Based on the few results of this review no instrument can be regarded as superior to the others. Whether the application of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales reduces the pressure ulcer incidence in paediatric practice is unknown. Maybe clinical judgement is more efficient in evaluating pressure ulcer risk than the application of risk scale scores.
机译:背景:对于临床儿科实践,建议使用适合年龄的,有效且可靠的工具进行压疮风险评估。目标:(1)目前存在哪些儿童PU风险量表? (2)他们的分数的诊断准确性是多少? (3)分数是否可靠,一致性程度如何? (4)风险量表分数在儿科实践中对临床有何影响?设计:系统审查。数据来源:MEDLINE(1950年至2010年12月),EMBASE(1989年至2010年12月),CINAHL(1982年至2010年12月),参考文献列表。审阅方法:两名审阅者独立筛选数据库,选择和评估文章和研究。包括诊断准确性,可靠性/协议以及研究儿童风险(0-18岁)中PU风险量表评分的性能和临床影响的实验研究。 PU开发被用作诊断准确性研究的参考标准。有效性和可靠性研究的方法学质量基于QUADAS和QAREL清单进行评估。结果:搜索产生了1141条提示。最后,纳入了15篇描述或应用12种小儿压疮风险量表的出版物。在前瞻性验证研究中对其中三个量表(预测皮肤破裂的新生儿皮肤风险评估量表,Braden Q量表,烧伤压力皮肤风险评估量表)进行了调查。可以使用四种仪器(有关预测皮肤破裂的新生儿皮肤风险评估量表,Starkid皮肤量表,Glamorgan量表,烧伤压疮风险评估量表)获得有关间质可靠性和一致性的经验证据。没有发现研究临床影响的研究。结论:缺乏关于小儿褥疮溃疡风险评估量表性能的可靠经验证据。根据本次审查的一些结果,没有一种仪器可以被认为是优于其他仪器的。压疮风险评估量表的应用是否会降低儿科实践中的压疮发生率尚不清楚。也许临床判断在评估褥疮风险方面比使用风险量表评分更有效。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号