医学
奇纳
科克伦图书馆
梅德林
重症监护室
荟萃分析
重症监护
风险评估
比例(比率)
接收机工作特性
急诊医学
重症监护医学
内科学
护理部
心理干预
政治学
量子力学
计算机安全
法学
物理
计算机科学
作者
Yi Zhang,Yiyu Zhuang,Jiantong Shen,Xianggping Chen,Qiuyue Wen,Qi Jiang,Yuewen Lao
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.iccn.2020.103009
摘要
Abstract 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.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI