Pancorbo-Hidalgo Pedro L, Garcia-Fernandez Francisco Pedro, Lopez-Medina Isabel Ma, Alvarez-Nieto Carmen
School of Nursing, University of Jaén, Jaén, Spain.
J Adv Nurs. 2006 Apr;54(1):94-110. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03794.x.
This paper reports a systematic review conducted to determine the effectiveness of the use of risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention in clinical practice, degree of validation of risk assessment scales, and effectiveness of risk assessment scales as indicators of risk of developing a pressure ulcer.
Pressure ulcers are an important health problem. The best strategy to avoid them is prevention. There are several risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention which complement nurses' clinical judgement. However, some of these have not undergone proper validation.
A systematic bibliographical review was conducted, based on a search of 14 databases in four languages using the keywords pressure ulcer or pressure sore or decubitus ulcer and risk assessment. Reports of clinical trials or prospective studies of validation were included in the review.
Thirty-three studies were included in the review, three on clinical effectiveness and the rest on scale validation. There is no decrease in pressure ulcer incidence was found which might be attributed to use of an assessment scale. However, the use of scales increases the intensity and effectiveness of prevention interventions. The Braden Scale shows optimal validation and the best sensitivity/specificity balance (57.1%/67.5%, respectively); its score is a good pressure ulcer risk predictor (odds ratio = 4.08, CI 95% = 2.56-6.48). The Norton Scale has reasonable scores for sensitivity (46.8%), specificity (61.8%) and risk prediction (OR = 2.16, CI 95% = 1.03-4.54). The Waterlow Scale offers a high sensitivity score (82.4%), but low specificity (27.4%); with a good risk prediction score (OR = 2.05, CI 95% = 1.11-3.76). Nurses' clinical judgement (only considered in three studies) gives moderate scores for sensitivity (50.6%) and specificity (60.1%), but is not a good pressure ulcer risk predictor (OR = 1.69, CI 95% = 0.76-3.75).
There is no evidence that the use of risk assessment scales decreases pressure ulcer incidence. The Braden Scale offers the best balance between sensitivity and specificity and the best risk estimate. Both the Braden and Norton Scales are more accurate than nurses' clinical judgement in predicting pressure ulcer risk.
本文报告一项系统评价,以确定在临床实践中使用风险评估量表预防压疮的有效性、风险评估量表的验证程度以及风险评估量表作为压疮发生风险指标的有效性。
压疮是一个重要的健康问题。避免压疮的最佳策略是预防。有几种用于预防压疮的风险评估量表,可辅助护士的临床判断。然而,其中一些量表尚未经过适当验证。
进行了一项系统的文献综述,基于使用关键词“压疮”或“压力性溃疡”或“褥疮”以及“风险评估”,用四种语言检索14个数据库。纳入综述的有临床试验报告或验证性前瞻性研究报告。
该综述纳入了33项研究,3项关于临床有效性,其余关于量表验证。未发现因使用评估量表而导致压疮发生率降低。然而,量表的使用增加了预防干预的强度和有效性。Braden量表显示出最佳的验证效果以及最佳的敏感性/特异性平衡(分别为57.1%/67.5%);其评分是压疮风险的良好预测指标(优势比 = 4.08,95%置信区间 = 2.56 - 6.48)。Norton量表在敏感性(46.8%)、特异性(61.8%)和风险预测方面(优势比 = 2.16,95%置信区间 = 1.03 - 4.54)得分合理。Waterlow量表敏感性得分较高(82.4%),但特异性较低(27.4%);风险预测得分良好(优势比 = 2.05,95%置信区间 = 1.11 - 3.76)。护士的临床判断(仅在3项研究中考虑)在敏感性(50.6%)和特异性(60.1%)方面得分中等,但不是压疮风险的良好预测指标(优势比 = 1.69,95%置信区间 = 0.76 - 3.75)。
没有证据表明使用风险评估量表可降低压疮发生率。Braden量表在敏感性和特异性之间提供了最佳平衡以及最佳风险估计。Braden量表和Norton量表在预测压疮风险方面比护士的临床判断更准确。