The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk
Abstract
The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk was developed to foster early identification of patients at risk for forming pressure sores. The scale is composed of six subscales that reflect sensory perception, skin moisture, activity, mobility, friction and shear, and nutritional status. Content and construct validity were established by expert opinion and empirical testing. Three studies of reliability are reported here, using raters who varied in level of educational preparation and geographic region. Two prospective studies of predictive validity were completed to determine the scale's sensitivity and specificity. Reliability ranged from r = .83 to r = .94 for nurses' aides and licensed practical nurses; when used by registered nurses, the reliability increased to r = .99. Predictive validity was calculated for each cut-off point of the scale. Using a cut-off point of 16, sensitivity was 100% in both studies. Specificity ranged from 64% to 90%. This instrument has highly satisfactory reliability when used by RNs, and greater sensitivity and specificity than instruments previously reported.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the case study, the model identified malignant pleural effusions and empyema from notes, antibiotics administered, nursing documentation of high risk of pressure ulcers (Braden index), and concepts such as 'pleurx' as discriminatory factors.
“From all the data, the models picked the elements that are highlighted in Fig. 3: evidence of malignant pleural effusions and empyema from notes, antibiotics administered, and nursing documentation of a high risk of pressure ulcers (i.e., Braden index41).”
From Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records (2018) · cites this paper as [41]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records
Rajkomar, A., Oren, E., Chen, K., Dai, A. M., Hajaj, N., Hardt, M., Liu, P. J., Liu, X., Marcus, J., Sun, M., et al. (2018) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-018-0029-1 · Cited by 2,648 · see citing works
“( Bergstrom et al. 1987) The model also placed high weights on concepts such as “pleurx,” the trade-name for a small chest tube.”
Background
- Authors
- BERGSTROM, N., BRADEN, B. J., LAGUZZA, A., & HOLMAN, V.
- Affiliations
- Creighton University (US)
- Venue
- Nursing Research
- Published
- 1987-07
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 205???210
- ISSN
- 0029-6562 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2058407709
- Cited by
- 1,415
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 64 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 68 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 40
- FWCI
- 14.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nursing Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- Braden scale, pressure ulcer risk, risk assessment, sensory perception, skin hydration, mobility (physical function), friction and shear, nutritional status, inter-rater reliability, predictive validity, sensitivity and specificity, nursing assessment tools
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Pressure Ulcer, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nursing Assessment, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Risk, Sensitivity and Specificity
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
