Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk factors for pressure injuries among critical care patients: A systematic review

Open access
Alderden, Jenny, Rondinelli, June, Pepper, Ginette, Cummins, Mollie, Whitney, JoAnne·2017·International Journal of Nursing Studies

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors independently predictive of pressure injury (also known as pressure ulcer) development among critical-care patients. DESIGN: We undertook a systematic review of primary research based on standardized criteria set forth by the Institute of Medicine. DATA SOURCES: We searched the following databases: CINAHL (EBSCOhost), the Cochrane Library (Wilson), Dissertations & Theses Global (ProQuest), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), and Scopus. There was no language restriction. METHOD: A research librarian coordinated the search strategy. Articles that potentially met inclusion criteria were screened by two investigators. Among the articles that met selection criteria, one investigator extracted data and a second investigator reviewed the data for accuracy. Based on a literature search, we developed a tool for assessing study quality using a combination of currently available tools and expert input. We used the method developed by Coleman et al. in 2014 to generate evidence tables and a summary narrative synthesis by domain and subdomain. RESULTS: Of 1753 abstracts reviewed, 158 were identified as potentially eligible and 18 fulfilled eligibility criteria. Five studies were classified as high quality, two were moderate quality, nine were low quality, and two were of very low quality. Age, mobility/activity, perfusion, and vasopressor infusion emerged as important risk factors for pressure injury development, whereas results for risk categories that are theoretically important, including nutrition, and skin/pressure injury status, were mixed. Methodological limitations across studies limited the generalizability of the results, and future research is needed, particularly to evaluate risk conferred by altered nutrition and skin/pressure injury status, and to further elucidate the effects of perfusion-related variables. CONCLUSIONS: Results underscore the importance of avoiding overinterpretation of a single study, and the importance of taking study quality into consideration when reviewing risk factors. Maximal pressure injury prevention efforts are particularly important among critical-care patients who are older, have altered mobility, experience poor perfusion, or who are receiving a vasopressor infusion.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.03.012

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Cited by

See all 258

Metadata

Authors
Alderden, J., Rondinelli, J., Pepper, G., Cummins, M., & Whitney, J.
Venue
International Journal of Nursing Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
71
Pages
97-114
ISSN
0020-7489 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2601917368
Cited by
258
References
32
FWCI
6.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk factors for pressure injuries among critical care patients: A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.03.012
The paper
Alderden, J., Rondinelli, J., Pepper, G., Cummins, M., & Whitney, J. (2017). Risk factors for pressure injuries among critical care patients: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.03.012

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.