Cochrane · systematic review · CD006471
Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers
Moore, ZEH, Patton, D · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
16
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
5
Included studies
NR
No studies 5 · 31.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 12.5%Low 9 · 56.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Braden pressure ulcer risk assessment and training compared with pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement and training for the prevention of pressure ulcers
Population: patients at risk of pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pressure ulcer incidence Visual skin assessment Braden pressure ulcer risk assessment and training vs pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement and training | RR 0.97 [0.53, 1.77] | 1 study · 150 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Severity of new pressure ulcers Time to ulcer development Pressure ulcer prevalence Braden pressure ulcer risk assessment and training vs pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement and training | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Braden pressure ulcer risk assessment and training compared with pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement alone for the prevention of pressure ulcers
Population: patients at risk of pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pressure ulcer incidence Visual skin assessment Braden pressure ulcer risk assessment and training vs pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement alone | RR 1.43 [0.77, 2.68] | 1 study · 180 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Severity of new pressure ulcers Time to ulcer development Pressure ulcer prevalence Braden pressure ulcer risk assessment and training vs pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment compared with pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement for the prevention of pressure ulcers
Population: patients at risk of pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pressure ulcer incidence Visual skin assessment Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment vs pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement | RR 1.1 [0.68, 1.81] | 1 study · 821 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 1 Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment vs pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement | RR 1.05 [0.58, 1.9] | 1 study · 821 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 2 Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment vs pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement | RR 1.25 [0.5, 3.13] | 1 study · 821 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to ulcer development Pressure ulcer prevalence Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment vs pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment compared with pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement for the prevention of pressure ulcers
Population: patients at risk of pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pressure ulcer incidence Visual skin assessment Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment vs pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement | RR 0.79 [0.46, 1.35] | 1 study · 820 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 1 Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment vs pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement | RR 0.9 [0.48, 1.68] | 1 study · 820 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 2 Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment vs pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement | RR 0.5 [0.15, 1.65] | 1 study · 820 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to ulcer development Pressure ulcer prevalence Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment vs pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment compared with Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment for the prevention of pressure ulcers
Population: patients at risk of pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pressure ulcer incidence Visual skin assessment Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment vs Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment | RR 1.41 [0.83, 2.39] | 1 study · 821 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 1 Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment vs Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment | RR 1.16 [0.63, 2.15] | 1 study · 821 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 2 Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment vs Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment | RR 2.49 [0.79, 7.89] | 1 study · 821 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to ulcer development Pressure ulcer prevalence Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment vs Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |