The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Pressure ulcer prevalence in Europe: a pilot study
Abstract
Rationale and aims Numerous prevalence studies have been conducted. The problem with these studies is that prevalence proportions cannot be compared with each other, because of differences in performance of each survey. There is no agreed standardized method for determining prevalence proportions. This study aimed to develop and pilot a uniform data collection instrument and methodology to measure the pressure ulcer prevalence and to get some insight into pressure ulcer prevalence across different patient groups in Europe. Methods Pressure ulcer experts from different European countries developed a data collection instrument, which included five categories of data: general data, patient data, risk assessment, skin observation and prevention. A convenience sample of university and general hospitals of Belgium, Italy, Portugal, UK and Sweden participated in the study. In each participating hospital, teams of two trained nurses who collected the data on the wards were established. All patients admitted before midnight on the day of the survey and older than 18 years were included. Results The data collection instrument and study procedure of the survey were found to be effective by all participants. 5947 patients were surveyed in 25 hospitals in five European countries. The pressure ulcer prevalence (grade 1–4) was 18.1% and if grade 1 ulcers were excluded, it was 10.5%. The sacrum and heels were the most affected locations. Only 9.7% of the patients in need of prevention received fully adequate preventive care. Conclusion The methodology is sufficiently robust to measure and compare pressure ulcer prevalence in different countries. The pressure ulcer prevalence was higher than expected and relatively few patients received adequate prevention. This indicates that more attention to prevention is needed in Europe.
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
Cited by
Nunan, R., Harding, K. G., & Martin, P. (2014) · Disease Models & Mechanisms · doi:10.1242/dmm.016782 · Cited by 542
An overview of co-morbidities and the development of pressure ulcers among older adults
Jaul, E., Barron, J., Rosenzweig, J. P., & Menczel, J. (2018) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-018-0997-7 · Cited by 373
Beeckman, D., Clays, E., Van Hecke, A., Vanderwee, K., Schoonhoven, L., & Verhaeghe, S. (2013) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.007 · Cited by 100
Self-citationFragility Fracture Nursing: Holistic Care and Management of the Orthogeriatric Patient
(2018) · Perspectives in Nursing Management and Care for Older Adults · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-76681-2 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Vanderwee, K., Clark, M., Dealey, C., Gunningberg, L., & Defloor, T.
- Venue
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-12-12
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 227-235
- ISSN
- 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2753
- OpenAlex
- W2141479968
- Cited by
- 493
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 33.27
- 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: Pressure ulcer prevalence in Europe: a pilot study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00684.x
- The paper
- Vanderwee, K., Clark, M., Dealey, C., Gunningberg, L., & Defloor, T. (2007). Pressure ulcer prevalence in Europe: a pilot study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00684.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.