The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Inter‐rater reliability of the EPUAP pressure ulcer classification system using photographs
Abstract
Background. Many classification systems for grading pressure ulcers are discussed in the literature. Correct identification and classification of a pressure ulcer is important for accurate reporting of the magnitude of the problem, and for timely prevention. The reliability of pressure ulcer classification systems has rarely been tested. Aims and objectives. The purpose of this paper is to examine the inter‐rater reliability of classifying pressure ulcers according to the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system when using pressure ulcer photographs. Design. Survey was among pressure ulcer experts. Methods. Fifty‐six photographs were presented to 44 pressure ulcer experts. The experts classified the lesions as normal skin, blanchable erythema, pressure ulcer (four grades) or incontinence lesion. Inter‐rater reliability was calculated. Results. The multirater‐Kappa for the entire group of experts was 0.80 (P < 0.001). Various groups of experts obtained comparable results. Differences in classifications are mainly limited to 1 degree of difference. Incontinence lesions are most often confused with grade 2 (blisters) and grade 3 pressure ulcers (superficial pressure ulcers). Conclusions. The inter‐rater reliability of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification appears to be good for the assessment of photographs by experts. The difference between an incontinence lesion and a blister or a superficial pressure ulcer does not always seem clear. Relevance to clinical practice. The ability to determine correctly whether a lesion is a pressure ulcer lesion is important to assess the effectiveness of preventive measures. In addition, the ability to make a correct distinction between pressure ulcers and incontinence lesions is important as they require different preventive measures. A faulty classification leads to mistaken measures and negative results. Photographs can be used as a practice instrument to learn to discern pressure ulcers from incontinence lesions and to get to know the different grades of pressure ulcers. The Pressure Ulcer Classification software package has been developed to facilitate learning.
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
Determination and Quantification Of Content Validity
LYNN, M. R. (1986) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017 · Cited by 6,775
Cited by
Computerized energy balance and complications in critically ill patients: An observational study
DVIR, D., COHEN, J., & SINGER, P. (2006) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2005.10.010 · Cited by 429
National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel's Updated Pressure Ulcer Staging System
Black, J., Baharestani, M. M., Cuddigan, J., Dorner, B., Edsberg, L., Langemo, D., Posthauer, M. E., Ratliff, C., & Taler, G. (2007) · Advances in Skin & Wound Care · doi:10.1097/01.asw.0000269314.23015.e9 · Cited by 375
Metadata
- Authors
- Defloor, T., & Schoonhoven, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-11
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 952-959
- ISSN
- 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2702
- OpenAlex
- W2130109724
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 26.56
- 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: Inter‐rater reliability of the EPUAP pressure ulcer classification system using photographs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00974.x
- The paper
- Defloor, T., & Schoonhoven, L. (2004). Inter‐rater reliability of the EPUAP pressure ulcer classification system using photographs. Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00974.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.