Suppr超能文献

重症监护病房患者压力性损伤评估量表的价值:系统评价与诊断试验准确性的Meta分析

Value of pressure injury assessment scales for patients in the intensive care unit: Systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

作者信息

Zhang Yi, Zhuang Yiyu, Shen Jiantong, Chen Xianggping, Wen Qiuyue, Jiang Qi, Lao Yuewen

机构信息

Department of Intensive Care Unit, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 311500, China; School of Medicine, Huzhou University, Huzhou Central Hospital, No. 759, East 2nd Road, Huzhou 313000, China.

Department of Nursing, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 311500, China.

出版信息

Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2021 Jun;64:103009. doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2020.103009. Epub 2021 Feb 25.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To review and examine the evidence of the value of pressure injury risk assessment scales in intensive care patients.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China Biomedical Literature Service System, VIP Database and CNIK from inception to February 2019. Two reviewers independently assessed articles' eligibility and risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-II (QUADAS-2). We used a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (HSROC) model to conduct the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

RESULT

Twenty-four studies were included, involving 16 scales and 15,199 patients in intensive care settings. Results indicated that the top four risk assessment scales were the Cubbin & Jackson Index (SEN = 0.84, SPE = 0.84, AUC = 0.90), the EVRUCI scale (SEN = 0.84, SPE = 0.68, AUC = 0.82), the Braden scale (SEN = 0.78, SPE = 0.61, AUC = 0.78), the Waterlow scale (SEN = 0.63, SPE = 0.46, AUC = 0.56). The Norton scale and the other eleven scales were tested in less than two studies and need to be further researched.

CONCLUSION

The Braden scale, most frequently used in hospitals, is not the best risk assessment tool for critically ill patients. The Cubbin & Jackson Index has good diagnostic test accuracy. However, low quality of evidence and important heterogeneity were observed.

摘要

目的

回顾并审视压力性损伤风险评估量表在重症监护患者中的价值证据。

研究方法

我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、Web of Science、Cochrane图书馆、中国生物医学文献服务系统、维普数据库和知网,检索时间从建库至2019年2月。两名研究者使用诊断准确性研究质量评估-II(QUADAS-2)独立评估文章的纳入资格和偏倚风险。我们使用分层汇总接受者操作特征(HSROC)模型对诊断准确性进行荟萃分析。

结果

纳入24项研究,涉及16种量表和15199例重症监护患者。结果表明,前四种风险评估量表分别是Cubbin & Jackson指数(敏感度=0.84,特异度=0.84,曲线下面积=0.90)、EVRUCI量表(敏感度=0.84,特异度=0.68,曲线下面积=0.82)、Braden量表(敏感度=0.78,特异度=0.61,曲线下面积=0.78)、Waterlow量表(敏感度=0.63,特异度=0.46,曲线下面积=0.56)。Norton量表和其他11种量表在少于两项研究中进行了测试,需要进一步研究。

结论

医院中最常用的Braden量表并非重症患者最佳的风险评估工具。Cubbin & Jackson指数具有良好的诊断测试准确性。然而,观察到证据质量较低且存在重要的异质性。

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