Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 438

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers/injuries: The protocol for the second update of the international Clinical Practice Guideline 2019

Open access
Kottner, Jan, Cuddigan, Janet, Carville, Keryln, Balzer, Katrin, Berlowitz, Dan, Law, Susan, Litchford, Mary, Mitchell, Pamela, Moore, Zena, Pittman, Joyce, Sigaudo-Roussel, Dominique, Yee, Chang Yee, Haesler, Emily·2019·Journal of Tissue Viability

Abstract

AIM: The European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, the Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance, and the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel are updating the 'Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline' (CPG) in 2019. The aim of this contribution is to summarize and to discuss the guideline development protocol for the 2019 update. METHODS: A guideline governance group determines and monitors all steps of the CPG development. An international survey of consumers will be undertaken to establish consumer needs and interests. Systematic evidence searches in relevant electronic databases cover the period from July 2013 through August 2018. Risk of bias of included studies will be assessed by two reviewers using established checklists and an overall strength of evidence assigned to the cumulative body of evidence. Small working groups review the evidence available for each topic, review and/or draft the guideline chapters and recommendations and/or good practice statements. Finally, strength of recommendation grades are assigned. The recommendations are rated based on their importance and their potential to improve individual patient outcomes using an international formal consensus process. DISCUSSION: Major methodological advantages of the current revision are a clear distinction between evidence-based recommendations and good practice statements and strong consumer involvement. CONCLUSION: The 2019 guideline update builds on the previous 2014 version to ensure consistency and comparability. Methodology changes will improve the guideline quality to increase clarity and to enhance implementation and compliance. The full guideline development protocol can be accessed from the guideline website (http://www.internationalguideline.com/).

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.jtv.2019.01.001

Cites

31 of 31 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 31 references

Metadata

Authors
Kottner, J., Cuddigan, J., Carville, K., Balzer, K., Berlowitz, D., Law, S., Litchford, M., Mitchell, P., Moore, Z., Pittman, J., Sigaudo-Roussel, D., Yee, C. Y., & Haesler, E.
Venue
Journal of Tissue Viability
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
51-58
ISSN
  • 0268-0009 (ISSN-L)
  • 0965-206X
OpenAlex
W2910225249
Cited by
438
References
31
FWCI
52.30
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: Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers/injuries: The protocol for the second update of the international Clinical Practice Guideline 2019. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jtv.2019.01.001
The paper
Kottner, J., Cuddigan, J., Carville, K., Balzer, K., Berlowitz, D., Law, S., Litchford, M., Mitchell, P., Moore, Z., Pittman, J., Sigaudo-Roussel, D., Yee, C. Y., & Haesler, E. (2019). Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers/injuries: The protocol for the second update of the international Clinical Practice Guideline 2019. Journal of Tissue Viability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtv.2019.01.001

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.