Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 208

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

An Instrument to Measure Healing in Pressure Ulcers: Development and Validation of the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH)

Open access
Stotts, N. A., Rodeheaver, G. T., Thomas, D. R., Frantz, R. A., Bartolucci, A. A., Sussman, C., Ferrell, B. A., Cuddigan, J., Maklebust, J.·2001·The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no instrument that provides an accurate and simple method of monitoring pressure ulcer healing in clinical practice. This article reports the two studies that were conducted to assess the validity of the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) as a tool to monitor healing of stage II-IV pressure ulcers. METHODS: Subjects in both studies (N = 103 and N = 269) were elderly (mean Study 1, 75 years, mean Study 2, 80 years), and the majority were women (Study 1, 51%, Study 2, 70%). Study data were extracted from patients' permanent records. RESULTS: Principal components analysis confirmed that the PUSH tool accounted for 58% to 74% of the wound healing variance over a 10-week period in Study 1 and 40% to 57% of the wound healing variance over a 12-week period in Study 2. In addition, multiple regression analysis, used to measure the sensitivity of the model to total healing, showed PUSH accounted for 39% of the variance in 6 weeks and 31% of the variance over 12 weeks (p <.001; Studies 1 and 2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Data from these two studies confirmed that the PUSH tool, with the components of length times width, exudate amount, and tissue type, is a valid and sensitive measure of pressure ulcer healing. It is a practical approach that provides clinically valid data regarding pressure ulcer healing. Further testing is needed to confirm these findings.

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 · 10.1093/gerona/56.12.m795

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.

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

Cited by

See all 208

Metadata

Authors
Stotts, N. A., Rodeheaver, G. T., Thomas, D. R., Frantz, R. A., Bartolucci, A. A., Sussman, C., Ferrell, B. A., Cuddigan, J., & Maklebust, J.
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
Published
2001-12-01
Volume
56
Issue
12
Pages
M795-M799
ISSN
  • 1079-5006 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-535X
OpenAlex
W2116099919
Cited by
208
References
0
FWCI
12.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: An Instrument to Measure Healing in Pressure Ulcers: Development and Validation of the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/gerona/56.12.m795
The paper
Stotts, N. A., Rodeheaver, G. T., Thomas, D. R., Frantz, R. A., Bartolucci, A. A., Sussman, C., Ferrell, B. A., Cuddigan, J., & Maklebust, J. (2001). An Instrument to Measure Healing in Pressure Ulcers: Development and Validation of the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH). The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/56.12.m795

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.