Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 380

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting Pressure Ulcer Risk: A Multisite Study of the Predictive Validity of the Braden Scale

Bergstrom, Nancy, Braden, Barbara, Kemp, Mildred, Champagne, Mary, Ruby, Elizabeth·1998·Nursing Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There have been no studies that have tested the Braden Scale for predictive validity and established cutoff points for assessing risk specific to different settings. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the predictive validity of the Braden Scale in a variety of settings (tertiary care hospitals, Veterans Administration Medical Centers [VAMCs], and skilled nursing facilities [SNFs]). To determine the critical cutoff point for classifying risk in these settings and whether this cutoff point differs between settings. To determine the optimal timing for assessing risk across settings. METHOD: Randomly selected subjects (N= 843) older than 19 years of age from a variety of care settings who did not have pressure ulcers on admission were included. Subjects were 63% men, 79% Caucasian, and had a mean age of 63 (+/-16) years. Subjects were assessed for pressure ulcers using the Braden Scale every 48 to 72 hours for 1 to 4 weeks. The Braden Scale score and skin assessment were independently rated, and the data collectors were blind to the findings of the other measures. RESULTS: One hundred eight of 843 (12.8%) subjects developed pressure ulcers. The incidence was 8.5%, 7.4%, and 23.9% in tertiary care hospitals, VAMCs, and SNFs, respectively. Subjects who developed pressure ulcers were older and more likely to be female than those who did not develop ulcers. Braden Scale scores were significantly (p = .0001) lower in those who developed ulcers than in those who did not develop ulcers. Overall, the critical cutoff score for predicting risk was 18. Risk assessment on admission is highly predictive of pressure ulcer development in all settings but not as predictive as the assessment completed 48 to 72 hours after admission. CONCLUSIONS: Risk assessment on admission is important for timely planning of preventive strategies. Ongoing assessment in SNFs and VAMCs improves prediction and permits fine-tuning of the risk-based prevention protocols. In tertiary care the most accurate prediction occurs at 48 to 72 hours after admission and at this time the care plan can be refined.

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 · 10.1097/00006199-199809000-00005

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 380

Metadata

Authors
Bergstrom, N., Braden, B., Kemp, M., Champagne, M., & Ruby, E.
Venue
Nursing Research
Published
1998-09
Volume
47
Issue
5
Pages
261-269
ISSN
0029-6562 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2073242542
Cited by
380
References
2
FWCI
31.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Predicting Pressure Ulcer Risk: A Multisite Study of the Predictive Validity of the Braden Scale. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00006199-199809000-00005
The paper
Bergstrom, N., Braden, B., Kemp, M., Champagne, M., & Ruby, E. (1998). Predicting Pressure Ulcer Risk: A Multisite Study of the Predictive Validity of the Braden Scale. Nursing Research. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199809000-00005

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.