Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 533

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review

Pancorbo‐Hidalgo, Pedro L., Garcia‐Fernandez, Francisco Pedro, Lopez‐Medina, Isabel Ma, Alvarez‐Nieto, Carmen·2006·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Aim. This paper reports a systematic review conducted to determine the effectiveness of the use of risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention in clinical practice, degree of validation of risk assessment scales, and effectiveness of risk assessment scales as indicators of risk of developing a pressure ulcer. Background. Pressure ulcers are an important health problem. The best strategy to avoid them is prevention. There are several risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention which complement nurses’ clinical judgement. However, some of these have not undergone proper validation. Method. A systematic bibliographical review was conducted, based on a search of 14 databases in four languages using the keywords pressure ulcer or pressure sore or decubitus ulcer and risk assessment. Reports of clinical trials or prospective studies of validation were included in the review. Findings. Thirty‐three studies were included in the review, three on clinical effectiveness and the rest on scale validation. There is no decrease in pressure ulcer incidence was found which might be attributed to use of an assessment scale. However, the use of scales increases the intensity and effectiveness of prevention interventions. The Braden Scale shows optimal validation and the best sensitivity/specificity balance (57·1%/67·5%, respectively); its score is a good pressure ulcer risk predictor (odds ratio = 4·08, CI 95% = 2·56–6·48). The Norton Scale has reasonable scores for sensitivity (46·8%), specificity (61·8%) and risk prediction (OR = 2·16, CI 95% = 1·03–4·54). The Waterlow Scale offers a high sensitivity score (82·4%), but low specificity (27·4%); with a good risk prediction score (OR = 2·05, CI 95% = 1·11–3·76). Nurses’ clinical judgement (only considered in three studies) gives moderate scores for sensitivity (50·6%) and specificity (60·1%), but is not a good pressure ulcer risk predictor (OR = 1·69, CI 95% = 0·76–3·75). Conclusion. There is no evidence that the use of risk assessment scales decreases pressure ulcer incidence. The Braden Scale offers the best balance between sensitivity and specificity and the best risk estimate. Both the Braden and Norton Scales are more accurate than nurses’ clinical judgement in predicting pressure ulcer risk.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03794.x

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 533

Metadata

Authors
Pancorbo‐Hidalgo, P. L., Garcia‐Fernandez, F. P., Lopez‐Medina, I. M., & Alvarez‐Nieto, C.
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-03-15
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
94-110
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W1988135093
Cited by
533
References
1
FWCI
9.34
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: Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03794.x
The paper
Pancorbo‐Hidalgo, P. L., Garcia‐Fernandez, F. P., Lopez‐Medina, I. M., & Alvarez‐Nieto, C. (2006). Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03794.x

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.