The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predictors of Pressure Ulcers in Adult Critical Care Patients
Abstract
Background: Pressure ulcers are one of the most underrated conditions in critically ill patients. Despite the introduction of clinical practice guidelines and advances in medical technology, the prevalence of pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients continues to escalate. Currently, consensus is lacking on the most important risk factors for pressure ulcers in critically ill patients, and no risk assessment scale exclusively for pressure ulcers in these patients is available. Objective: To determine which risk factors are most predictive of pressure ulcers in adult critical care patients. Risk factors investigated included total score on the Braden Scale, mobility, activity, sensory perception, moisture, friction/shear, nutrition, age, blood pressure, length of stay in the intensive care unit, score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, vasopressor administration, and comorbid conditions. Methods: A retrospective, correlational design was used to examine 347 patients admitted to a medical-surgical intensive care unit from October 2008 through May 2009. Results: According to direct logistic regression analyses, age, length of stay, mobility, friction/shear, norepinephrine infusion, and cardiovascular disease explained a major part of the variance in pressure ulcers. Conclusion: Current risk assessment scales for development of pressure ulcers may not include risk factors common in critically ill adults. Development of a risk assessment model for pressure ulcers in these patients is warranted and could be the foundation for development of a risk assessment tool.
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
The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk
BERGSTROM, N., BRADEN, B. J., LAGUZZA, A., & HOLMAN, V. (1987) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-198707000-00002 · Cited by 1,415
Cited by
Risk factors for pressure injuries among critical care patients: A systematic review
Alderden, J., Rondinelli, J., Pepper, G., Cummins, M., & Whitney, J. (2017) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.03.012 · Cited by 258
Predicting pressure injury using nursing assessment phenotypes and machine learning methods
Song, W., Kang, M.-J., Zhang, L., Jung, W., Song, J., Bates, D. W., & Dykes, P. C. (2021) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaa336 · Cited by 67
Constructing Inpatient Pressure Injury Prediction Models Using Machine Learning Techniques
Hu, Y.-H., Lee, Y.-L., Kang, M.-F., & Lee, P.-J. (2020) · CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing · doi:10.1097/cin.0000000000000604 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Cox, J.
- Venue
- American Journal of Critical Care
- Publisher
- AACN Publishing
- Published
- 2011-09-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 364-375
- ISSN
- 1062-3264 (ISSN-L)
- 1937-710X
- OpenAlex
- W2017342490
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 50.29
- 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
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.