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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008 · Cited by 10,636
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · Cited by 8,477
STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.h5527 · Cited by 3,660 · cited 1×
“Diagnostic accuracy studies are studies in which results of index tests are compared with results from reference standards, sometimes called gold standard, at the same point in time [38].”
ResultAssessing Bias in Studies of Prognostic Factors
Hayden, J. A., van der Windt, D. A., Cartwright, J. L., Côté, P., & Bombardier, C. (2013) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00009 · Cited by 3,287
Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust
Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines, Board on Health Care Services, & Institute of Medicine (2011) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/13058 · Cited by 3,081
Clinical guidelines: Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines
Woolf, S. H., Grol, R., Hutchinson, A., Eccles, M., & Grimshaw, J. (1999) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7182.527 · Cited by 2,548
Going from evidence to recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Vist, G. E., Liberati, A., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39493.646875.ae · Cited by 1,810
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies
Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Brozek, J., Glasziou, P., Jaeschke, R., Vist, G. E., Williams, J. W., Kunz, R., Craig, J., Montori, V. M., et al. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39500.677199.ae · Cited by 1,782
Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement
Pinnock, H., Barwick, M., Carpenter, C. R., Eldridge, S., Grandes, G., Griffiths, C. J., Rycroft-Malone, J., Meissner, P., Murray, E., Patel, A., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i6795 · Cited by 1,446
Alonso-Coello, P., Schünemann, H. J., Moberg, J., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Akl, E. A., Davoli, M., Treweek, S., Mustafa, R. A., Rada, G., Rosenbaum, S., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i2016 · Cited by 1,317
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.