Suppr超能文献

压疮风险评估量表的有效性;库宾和杰克逊量表、布拉登量表及道格拉斯量表

Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales; Cubbin and Jackson, Braden, and Douglas scale.

作者信息

Jun Seongsook R N, Jeong Ihnsook R N, Lee Younghee R N

机构信息

Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Pusan National University, 1-10 Ami-Dong, Seo-Gu, 602-739, Pusan, South Korea

出版信息

Int J Nurs Stud. 2004 Feb;41(2):199-204. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7489(03)00135-4.

Abstract

This study was to compare the validity of three pressure ulcer risk tools: Cubbin and Jackson, Braden, and Douglas scales. Data were collected three times per week from 48 to 72 h after admission based on the three pressure ulcer risk assessment scales and skin assessment tool developed by the Panel for the Prediction and Prevention of Pressure Ulcers (1994) from 112 intensive care unit (ICU) patients in a educational hospital Ulsan, Korea during December 11, 2000 to February 10, 2001. When a patient developed a pressure ulcer at the time of assessment, the patient was classified into 'pressure ulcer group', and when patients did not have a pressure ulcer until they died, moved to other wards or were discharged from the hospital, they were classified into 'not pressure ulcer group'. Four indices of validity and area under the curves (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) were calculated. Based on the cut-off point presented by the developer, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value were as follows: Cubbin and Jackson scale: 89%, 61%, 51%, 92%, respectively, Braden scale: 97%, 26%, 37%, 95%, respectively, and Douglas scale: 100%, 18%, 34%, 100%, respectively. AUCs of ROC curve were 0.826 for Cubbin and Jackson, 0.707 for Braden, and 0.791 for Douglas. Overall, the Cubbin and Jackson scale showed the best validity among scales tested and we recommended it for this ICU.

摘要

本研究旨在比较三种压疮风险评估工具(Cubbin和Jackson量表、Braden量表及Douglas量表)的有效性。2000年12月11日至2001年2月10日期间,在韩国蔚山某教学医院,依据三种压疮风险评估量表以及由压疮预测与预防小组(1994年)开发的皮肤评估工具,对112名重症监护病房(ICU)患者入院后48至72小时内每周进行三次数据收集。在评估时发生压疮的患者被归为“压疮组”,而在死亡、转至其他病房或出院前未发生压疮的患者被归为“非压疮组”。计算了四种有效性指标以及受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积(AUC)。根据开发者给出的截断点,敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值如下:Cubbin和Jackson量表分别为89%、61%、51%、92%;Braden量表分别为97%、26%、37%、95%;Douglas量表分别为100%、18%、34%、100%。ROC曲线的AUC值,Cubbin和Jackson量表为0.826,Braden量表为0.707,Douglas量表为0.791。总体而言,在测试的量表中,Cubbin和Jackson量表显示出最佳有效性,我们推荐在该ICU中使用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验