Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment vs pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement: Severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 2
Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment showed no clear difference in severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 2 compared with pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment vs pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement Severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 2 · patients at risk of pressure ulcers Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment showed no clear difference in severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 2 compared with pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement (low certainty). Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.5 [0.15, 1.65] | 1 study · 820 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.