Objective:To translate an intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool(the COMHON Index)from English into Chinese Mandarin.Methods:A four-step approach to instrument translation was utilised:1)English-...Objective:To translate an intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool(the COMHON Index)from English into Chinese Mandarin.Methods:A four-step approach to instrument translation was utilised:1)English-Mandarin forward-translation by three independent bilinguists;2)Mandarin-English back-translation by two other inde-pendent bilinguists;3)comparison of forward and back-translations,identification of discrepancies,with required amendments returned to step one;and 4)piloting of the translated instrument.The pilot study was undertaken in a Chinese surgical intensive care unit with a convenience sample of 20 nurses.A five-point ordinal scale(1=very difficult;5=very easy)was used to assess ease-of-use and understanding.Translations were retained where medians4 indicated use and understanding was easy to very easy.Results:Five iterations of steps 1 to 3,and two sets of amendments to the original English instrument,were required to achieve translation consensus prior to pilot testing.Subscale scoring,sum scoring,and risk categorisation were documented in most pilot assessments(≥80%),but three sum scores were incorrectly tallied.The overall tool and all subscales were easy to use and understand(medians≥4),and most assessments(16/20,80%)took5 min to complete.Thus,translations were retained,with minor amendments made to instrument instructions for scoring and risk categorisation.Conclusions:An easy-to-use Chinese Mandarin intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool has been introduced through cross-cultural translation.However,it requires further testing of interrater reliability and agreement.A rigorous translation and reporting exemplar is presented that provides guidance for future translations.展开更多
Aims:Paediatric pressure ulcers are a serious problem to healthcare service.Thus,effective and early identification of the risk of developing pressure ulcer is essential.The Braden Q scale is a widely used tool in the...Aims:Paediatric pressure ulcers are a serious problem to healthcare service.Thus,effective and early identification of the risk of developing pressure ulcer is essential.The Braden Q scale is a widely used tool in the risk assessment of paediatric pressure ulcer,but its predictive power is controversial.Hence,we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the predictive power of the Braden Q scale for pressure ulcer in hospitalised children and offer recommendations for clinical decision.Methods:Studies that evaluated the predictive power of the Braden Q scale were searched through databases in English and Chinese,including Medline,Cochrane Library,Embase,CINAHL,SinoMed,CNKI,Wangfang and VIP.The studies were screened by two independent reviewers.QUADAS-2 was used to assess the risk of bias of eligible studies.Demographic data and predictive value indices were extracted.The pooled sensitivity,specificity and receiver operating characteristics(ROC)were calculated by MetaDiSc 1.4 using random-effects models.Results:Cochran Q=26.13(P=0.0036)indicated the existence of heterogeneity;the I2 for pooled DOR was 61.7%,suggesting significant heterogeneity among the included studies.The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.73(95%CI:0.67-0.78)and 0.61(95%CI:0.59-0.63),respectively,yielding a combined DOR of 3.47(95%CI:2-6.01).The area under the ROC curve was 0.7078±0.0421,and the overall diagnostic accuracy(Q*)was 0.6591±0.0337.Sensitivity analysis showed the results were robust.Conclusion:The Braden Q scale has moderate predictive validity with medium sensitivity and low specificity for pressure ulcers in hospitalised children.Further development and modification of this tool for use in paediatric population are warranted.展开更多
Aims and Objectives:The aim of this study was to identify risk factors associated with an increased risk of intraoperative pressure injury in patients undergoing aortic surgery.Background:Intraoperative pressure injur...Aims and Objectives:The aim of this study was to identify risk factors associated with an increased risk of intraoperative pressure injury in patients undergoing aortic surgery.Background:Intraoperative pressure injuries are some of the most signifi cant health problems in clinical practice.According to previous studies,patients undergoing aortic surgery are at high risk of developing an intraoperative pressure injury,with an incidence much higher than that associated with other types of cardiac surgery.Design:This was a nested case-control study.Methods:Following the STROBE checklist,a nested case-control approach was adopted in this study.A patient cohort was selected on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria from patients undergoing aortic surgery.Data were collected from these patients by means of a tailored questionnaire designed in-house.Patients with intraoperative pressure injury at the end of surgery were identifi ed as the case group,while the control group consisted of patients without intraoperative pressure injury.Patients in the groups underwent 1:1 matching based on age and sex.Initially,a single-factor analysis was conducted between the two groups.Subsequently,risk factors for intraoperative pressure injury were identifi ed through conditional logistic regression analysis with use of the variables that exhibited statistically signifi cant differences in the single-factor analysis.Results:A total of 400 patients were selected.Among these,167 patients experienced intraoperative pressure injury at an incidence rate of 41.8%.Strict preoperative bed confi nement,deep hypothermic circulatory arrest during surgery,application of norepinephrine or dopamine during surgery,and intraoperative skin wetting were associated with the occurrence of intraoperative pressure injury in patients undergoing aortic surgery.Conclusions:Nurses should thoroughly assess the risk of intraoperative pressure injury and implement appropriate preventative interventions,particularly in high-risk patients undergoing aortic surgery.展开更多
目的探讨改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表诊断国内ICU患者压力性损伤的适用性和最佳界值。方法采用便利抽样法,选取2021年4月—2022年10月在甘肃省35所三级医院住院的6203例ICU患者作为调查对象,由经过规范化培训的ICU护士检查患者全身皮...目的探讨改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表诊断国内ICU患者压力性损伤的适用性和最佳界值。方法采用便利抽样法,选取2021年4月—2022年10月在甘肃省35所三级医院住院的6203例ICU患者作为调查对象,由经过规范化培训的ICU护士检查患者全身皮肤并收集相关资料,判定是否存在压力性损伤及其分期,同时采用改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表进行压力性损伤风险评估。使用软件统计分析改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表诊断ICU患者压力性损伤的受试者工作特征曲线下面积(area under the curve,AUC)、约登指数、灵敏度和特异度等指标。结果6203例ICU患者住院期间共有79例发生压力性损伤,发生率为1.27%。分层分析显示,改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表预测诊断不同性别、年龄、ICU住院天数、是否机械通气和是否手术的ICU患者压力性损伤的AUC为0.74~0.92,约登指数为0.40~0.74,灵敏度和特异度分别为77.27%~94.44%、62.44%~82.63%。总分≤28分时,改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表的AUC最大(0.86),其约登指数、灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、阳性似然比和阴性似然比分别为0.60、92.41%、67.26%、3.50%、99.86%、2.82、0.11。结论改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表可作为有效预测、诊断国内ICU患者压力性损伤的适用工具,最佳界值以≤28分为宜。展开更多
目的评价不同压力性损伤风险评估工具对ICU患者压力性损伤风险预测的准确性,为准确筛查ICU压力性损伤风险患者提供依据。方法计算机检索PubMed、Cochrane Library、CINAHL、EMbase、Web of Science、中国知网、维普网、万方数据和中国...目的评价不同压力性损伤风险评估工具对ICU患者压力性损伤风险预测的准确性,为准确筛查ICU压力性损伤风险患者提供依据。方法计算机检索PubMed、Cochrane Library、CINAHL、EMbase、Web of Science、中国知网、维普网、万方数据和中国生物医学文献服务系统中ICU患者压力性损伤风险评估工具相关研究,经文献筛选、质量评价、资料提取后,采用ANOVA模型实现基于贝叶斯方法的诊断实验准确性网状Meta分析。结果共纳入28篇文献,共计11221例患者,涵盖12个压力性损伤风险评估工具。Meta分析结果显示,改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表优势指数最高,灵敏度[0.72,95%CI(0.59,0.82)],特异度[0.75,95%CI(0.63,0.84)],其次为EVARUCI量表,灵敏度[0.75,95%CI(0.54,0.90)],特异度[0.65,95%CI(0.42,0.83)];Braden量表优势指数最低,灵敏度[0.66,95%CI(0.62,0.71)],特异度[0.58,95%CI(0.54,0.61)]。结论改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表、EVARUCI量表具有较好的诊断试验准确性,临床医护人员评估ICU患者压力性损伤风险时可优先选用。展开更多
基金supported in part by a PhD scholarship awarded to the first author by The Prince Charles Hospital Foundation[grant number PhD2019-01]。
文摘Objective:To translate an intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool(the COMHON Index)from English into Chinese Mandarin.Methods:A four-step approach to instrument translation was utilised:1)English-Mandarin forward-translation by three independent bilinguists;2)Mandarin-English back-translation by two other inde-pendent bilinguists;3)comparison of forward and back-translations,identification of discrepancies,with required amendments returned to step one;and 4)piloting of the translated instrument.The pilot study was undertaken in a Chinese surgical intensive care unit with a convenience sample of 20 nurses.A five-point ordinal scale(1=very difficult;5=very easy)was used to assess ease-of-use and understanding.Translations were retained where medians4 indicated use and understanding was easy to very easy.Results:Five iterations of steps 1 to 3,and two sets of amendments to the original English instrument,were required to achieve translation consensus prior to pilot testing.Subscale scoring,sum scoring,and risk categorisation were documented in most pilot assessments(≥80%),but three sum scores were incorrectly tallied.The overall tool and all subscales were easy to use and understand(medians≥4),and most assessments(16/20,80%)took5 min to complete.Thus,translations were retained,with minor amendments made to instrument instructions for scoring and risk categorisation.Conclusions:An easy-to-use Chinese Mandarin intensive care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool has been introduced through cross-cultural translation.However,it requires further testing of interrater reliability and agreement.A rigorous translation and reporting exemplar is presented that provides guidance for future translations.
文摘Aims:Paediatric pressure ulcers are a serious problem to healthcare service.Thus,effective and early identification of the risk of developing pressure ulcer is essential.The Braden Q scale is a widely used tool in the risk assessment of paediatric pressure ulcer,but its predictive power is controversial.Hence,we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the predictive power of the Braden Q scale for pressure ulcer in hospitalised children and offer recommendations for clinical decision.Methods:Studies that evaluated the predictive power of the Braden Q scale were searched through databases in English and Chinese,including Medline,Cochrane Library,Embase,CINAHL,SinoMed,CNKI,Wangfang and VIP.The studies were screened by two independent reviewers.QUADAS-2 was used to assess the risk of bias of eligible studies.Demographic data and predictive value indices were extracted.The pooled sensitivity,specificity and receiver operating characteristics(ROC)were calculated by MetaDiSc 1.4 using random-effects models.Results:Cochran Q=26.13(P=0.0036)indicated the existence of heterogeneity;the I2 for pooled DOR was 61.7%,suggesting significant heterogeneity among the included studies.The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.73(95%CI:0.67-0.78)and 0.61(95%CI:0.59-0.63),respectively,yielding a combined DOR of 3.47(95%CI:2-6.01).The area under the ROC curve was 0.7078±0.0421,and the overall diagnostic accuracy(Q*)was 0.6591±0.0337.Sensitivity analysis showed the results were robust.Conclusion:The Braden Q scale has moderate predictive validity with medium sensitivity and low specificity for pressure ulcers in hospitalised children.Further development and modification of this tool for use in paediatric population are warranted.
文摘Aims and Objectives:The aim of this study was to identify risk factors associated with an increased risk of intraoperative pressure injury in patients undergoing aortic surgery.Background:Intraoperative pressure injuries are some of the most signifi cant health problems in clinical practice.According to previous studies,patients undergoing aortic surgery are at high risk of developing an intraoperative pressure injury,with an incidence much higher than that associated with other types of cardiac surgery.Design:This was a nested case-control study.Methods:Following the STROBE checklist,a nested case-control approach was adopted in this study.A patient cohort was selected on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria from patients undergoing aortic surgery.Data were collected from these patients by means of a tailored questionnaire designed in-house.Patients with intraoperative pressure injury at the end of surgery were identifi ed as the case group,while the control group consisted of patients without intraoperative pressure injury.Patients in the groups underwent 1:1 matching based on age and sex.Initially,a single-factor analysis was conducted between the two groups.Subsequently,risk factors for intraoperative pressure injury were identifi ed through conditional logistic regression analysis with use of the variables that exhibited statistically signifi cant differences in the single-factor analysis.Results:A total of 400 patients were selected.Among these,167 patients experienced intraoperative pressure injury at an incidence rate of 41.8%.Strict preoperative bed confi nement,deep hypothermic circulatory arrest during surgery,application of norepinephrine or dopamine during surgery,and intraoperative skin wetting were associated with the occurrence of intraoperative pressure injury in patients undergoing aortic surgery.Conclusions:Nurses should thoroughly assess the risk of intraoperative pressure injury and implement appropriate preventative interventions,particularly in high-risk patients undergoing aortic surgery.
文摘目的探讨改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表诊断国内ICU患者压力性损伤的适用性和最佳界值。方法采用便利抽样法,选取2021年4月—2022年10月在甘肃省35所三级医院住院的6203例ICU患者作为调查对象,由经过规范化培训的ICU护士检查患者全身皮肤并收集相关资料,判定是否存在压力性损伤及其分期,同时采用改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表进行压力性损伤风险评估。使用软件统计分析改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表诊断ICU患者压力性损伤的受试者工作特征曲线下面积(area under the curve,AUC)、约登指数、灵敏度和特异度等指标。结果6203例ICU患者住院期间共有79例发生压力性损伤,发生率为1.27%。分层分析显示,改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表预测诊断不同性别、年龄、ICU住院天数、是否机械通气和是否手术的ICU患者压力性损伤的AUC为0.74~0.92,约登指数为0.40~0.74,灵敏度和特异度分别为77.27%~94.44%、62.44%~82.63%。总分≤28分时,改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表的AUC最大(0.86),其约登指数、灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、阳性似然比和阴性似然比分别为0.60、92.41%、67.26%、3.50%、99.86%、2.82、0.11。结论改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表可作为有效预测、诊断国内ICU患者压力性损伤的适用工具,最佳界值以≤28分为宜。
文摘目的评价不同压力性损伤风险评估工具对ICU患者压力性损伤风险预测的准确性,为准确筛查ICU压力性损伤风险患者提供依据。方法计算机检索PubMed、Cochrane Library、CINAHL、EMbase、Web of Science、中国知网、维普网、万方数据和中国生物医学文献服务系统中ICU患者压力性损伤风险评估工具相关研究,经文献筛选、质量评价、资料提取后,采用ANOVA模型实现基于贝叶斯方法的诊断实验准确性网状Meta分析。结果共纳入28篇文献,共计11221例患者,涵盖12个压力性损伤风险评估工具。Meta分析结果显示,改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表优势指数最高,灵敏度[0.72,95%CI(0.59,0.82)],特异度[0.75,95%CI(0.63,0.84)],其次为EVARUCI量表,灵敏度[0.75,95%CI(0.54,0.90)],特异度[0.65,95%CI(0.42,0.83)];Braden量表优势指数最低,灵敏度[0.66,95%CI(0.62,0.71)],特异度[0.58,95%CI(0.54,0.61)]。结论改良版Cubbin&Jackson量表、EVARUCI量表具有较好的诊断试验准确性,临床医护人员评估ICU患者压力性损伤风险时可优先选用。
