Search

Background: The first step in preventing pressure injuries (PIs), which represent a significant burden on intensive care unit (ICU) patients and the health care system, is to assess the risk for developing PIs. A valid risk assessment scale is essential to evaluate the risk and avoid PIs. Objectives: To compare the predictive validity of the Braden scale and Waterlow scale in ICUs. Design: A multicentre, prospective and cross‐sectional study. Methods: We conducted this study among 6416 patients admitted to ICUs in Gansu province of China from April 2021 to October 2022. The incidence and characteristics of PIs were collected. The risk assessment of PIs was determined using the Braden and Waterlow scale. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the two scales were compared. Results: Out of 5903 patients, 72 (1.2%) developed PIs. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive, and the area under the curve of the Braden scale were 77.8%, 50.9%, 0.014 and 0.996, and 0.689, respectively. These values for the Waterlow scale were 54.2%, 71.1%, 0.017, 0.994 and 0.651. Conclusions: Both scales could be used for risk assessment of PIs in ICU patients. However, the accuracy of visual inspection for assessment of skin colour, nursing preventive measures for patients and scales inter‐rater inconsistency may limited the predictive validity statistics. Relevance to Clinical Practice: Both scales could be used for PIs risk assessment. The low specificity of the Braden scale and low sensitivity of the Waterlow scale remind medical staff to use them in combination with clinical judgement and other objective indicators. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was designed to enhance the management of PIs. Patients and the general public were not involved in the study design, analysis, and interpretation of the data or manuscript preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Digital health interventions (DHIs) have shown promising results for the management of chronic wounds. However, its effectiveness compared to usual care and whether variability in the type of intervention affects wound outcomes are unclear., Objective: The main objective was to determine the effectiveness of DHIs on wound healing outcomes in adult patients with chronic wounds. The secondary objectives were to assess if there was any variation in wound healing outcomes across the various types of DHIs., Methods: In total, 9 databases were searched for the literature up to August 1, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and quasi-experimental studies comparing the efficacy of DHIs with controls in improving wound outcomes in adult patients with chronic wounds were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. We assessed the quality of each RCT, cohort study, and quasi-experimental study separately using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, ROBINS-I, and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools checklists. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were pooled using the random effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed by the I 2 statistic. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were also performed., Results: A total of 25 studies with 8125 patients were included in this systematic review, while only 20 studies with 6535 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Efficacy outcomes in RCTs showed no significant differences between the DHIs and control groups in terms of wound healing (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93-1.12; P=.67) and all-cause mortality around 1 year (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.55-2.12; P=.83). Compared with the control group, the use of DHIs was associated with significant changes in adverse events (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.89; P=.02). Subgroup analysis suggested a positive effect of the digital platforms in improving wound healing (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.35-3.56; P=.002). Although meta-analysis was not possible in terms of wound size, cost analysis, patient satisfaction, and wound reporting rates, most studies still demonstrated that DHIs were not inferior to usual care in managing chronic wounds., Conclusions: The findings of our study demonstrate the viability of adopting DHIs to manage chronic wounds. However, more prominent, high-quality RCTs are needed to strengthen the evidence, and more detailed clinical efficacy research is required., Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023392415; https://tinyurl.com/4ybz6bs9., (©Xinrui Bai, Hongyan Zhang, Yanxia Jiao, Chenlu Yuan, Yuxia Ma, Lin Han. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 16.07.2024.)