Systematic Review | Published:

Predictive efficacy of the Braden Q Scale for pediatric pressure ulcer risk assessment in the PICU: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Risk assessment is recommended as the foremost step in the prevention of pressure ulcers. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive efficacy of the Braden Q Scale for the assessment of pediatric pressure ulcer risk in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

Methods

Six databases were searched. A meta-analysis was performed using Meta DiSc 1.4.

Results

Seven studies were included, with a total of 1273 cases and 72 pressure ulcers. The meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the Braden Q Scale for PICU patients were 0.72 and 0.60 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60–0.82; 0.57–0.63), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 1.69, 0.62, and 3.34 (95% CI: 1.18–2.42; 0.40–0.94; 1.47–7.61), respectively. The area under the curve of summary receiver operating characteristics was 69.18%, and the Q index was 0.6464.

Conclusion

The Braden Q Scale predicted pressure ulcer risk in the PICU with moderate accuracy. More testing for the Braden QD Scale’s performance is needed, taking into account the impact of the interventions. In the future, it will be necessary to look for and improve pediatric pressure ulcer risk assessment tools.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Baharestani, M. M. & Ratliff, C. R. Pressure ulcers in neonates and children: an NPUAP white paper. Adv. Skin Wound Care 20, 208, 210, 212, 214, 216, 218–220 (2007).

  2. 2.

    McLane, K. M. et al. The2003 national pediatric pressure ulcer and skin breakdown prevalence survey: a multisite study. J. Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 31, 168–178 (2004).

  3. 3.

    Pellegrino, D. et al. Prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries in pediatric hospitals in the city of Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. J. Tissue Viability 26, 241–245 (2017).

  4. 4.

    Razmus, I. & Bergquist-Beringer, S. Pressure injury prevalence and the rate of hospital-acquired pressure injury among pediatric patients in acute care. J. Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 44, 110–117 (2017).

  5. 5.

    Sayar, S. et al. Incidence of pressure ulcers in intensive care unit patients at risk according to the Waterlow scale and factors influencing the development of pressure ulcers. J. Clin. Nurs. 18, 765–774 (2009).

  6. 6.

    VanGilder, C. et al. The International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey: 2006–2015: a 10-year pressure injury prevalence and demographic trend analysis by care setting. J. Wound Care 44, 20–28 (2017).

  7. 7.

    Ayello, E. A. et al. Legal issues in the care of pressure ulcer patients: key concepts for health care providers: a consensus paper from the international expert wound care advisory panel. J. Palliat. Med. 12, 995–1008 (2009).

  8. 8.

    Garcia-Fernandez, F. P., Pancorbo-Hidalgo, P. L. & Agreda, J. J. Predictive capacity of risk assessment scales and clinical judgment for pressure ulcers: a meta-analysis. J. Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 41, 24–34 (2014).

  9. 9.

    NPUAP, EPUAP, PPPIP. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline (Cambridge Media, Osborne Park, 2014).

  10. 10.

    Tran, J. P. et al. Prevention of pressure ulcers in the acute care setting: new innovations and technologies. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 138(Suppl.), 232S–240SS (2016).

  11. 11.

    Schluer, A. B., Schols, J. M. & Halfens, R. J. Risk and associated factors of pressure ulcers in hospitalized children over 1 year of age. J. Spec. Pediatr. 19, 80–89 (2014).

  12. 12.

    Willock, J. & Maylor, M. Pressure ulcers in infants and children. Nurs. Stand. 18, 56, 62–60 (2004).

  13. 13.

    Chou, R. et al. Pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention: a systematic comparative effectiveness review. Ann. Intern. Med. 159, 28–38 (2013).

  14. 14.

    Curley, M. A. et al. Predicting pressure ulcer risk in pediatric patients: the Braden Q Scale. Nurs. Res. 52, 22–33 (2003).

  15. 15.

    Quigley, S. M. & Curley, M. A. Skin integrity in the pediatric population: preventing and managing pressure ulcers. J. Soc. Pediatr. 1, 7–18 (1996).

  16. 16.

    Tume, L. N. et al. The prognostic ability of early Braden Q Scores in critically ill children. Nurs. Crit. Care 19, 98–103 (2013).

  17. 17.

    Whiting, P. F. et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann. Intern. Med. 155, 529–536 (2011).

  18. 18.

    Deeks, J. J. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 323, 157–162 (2001).

  19. 19.

    Higgins, J. P. & Thompson, S. G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 21, 1539–1558 (2002).

  20. 20.

    Gu, X. R. et al. Applicability of Braden-Q Scale for the prediction of pressure ulcers development in children in Mainland China. J. Nurs. Sci. 24, 6–8 (2009).

  21. 21.

    Feng, S. et al. Study of two pressure ulcer risk assessment scales utilizing in pediatric patients. J. Nurs. (China) 17, 50–53 (2010).

  22. 22.

    Lu, Y. F. et al. Research in application of two kinds of pressure ulcer assessment scale in children patients. Chin. J. Pract. Nurs. 26, 41–43 (2010).

  23. 23.

    Shen, L., Zhang, G. X. & Zhang, L. L. Research in application of two kinds of pressure ulcer assessment scale in children patients. Int. Med. Health Guid. News 11, 1491–1493 (2014).

  24. 24.

    Lu, Y. F. et al. Predicting pressure ulcer risk with the Braden Q Scale in Chinese pediatric patients in ICU. Chin. Nurs. Res. 1, 28–34 (2015).

  25. 25.

    Malloy, M. B. & Perez-Woods, R. C. Neonatal skin care: prevention of skin breakdown. Pediatr. Nurs. 17, 41–48 (1991).

  26. 26.

    Curley, M. et al. Predicting pressure injury risk in pediatric patients: the Braden QD Scale. J. Pediatr. 192, 189–195 (2018).

  27. 27.

    Edsberg, L. E. et al. Revised National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Pressure Injury Staging System: revised pressure injury staging system. J. Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 43, 585–597 (2016).

  28. 28.

    Manning, M. J., Gauvreau, K. & Curley, M. A. Factors associated with occipital pressure ulcers in hospitalized infants and children. Am. J. Crit. Care 24, 342–348 (2015).

  29. 29.

    Capon, A. et al. Pressure ulcer risk in long-term units: prevalence and associated factors. J. Adv. Nurs. 58, 263–272 (2007).

  30. 30.

    Razmus, I. Factors associated with pediatric hospital-acquired pressure injuries. J. Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 45, 107–116 (2018).

  31. 31.

    Rodriguez-Key, M. & Alonzi, A. Nutrition, skin integrity, and pressure ulcer healing in chronically ill children: an overview. Ostomy Wound Manag. 53, 56–58, 60, 62 (2007).

  32. 32.

    Wu, S. S. et al. Pressure ulcers in pediatric patients with spinal cord injury: a review of assessment, prevention, and topical management. Adv. Skin Wound Care 22, 273–284, 285, 286 (2009).

  33. 33.

    Raju, D. et al. Exploring factors associated with pressure ulcers: a data mining approach. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 52, 102–111 (2015).

  34. 34.

    Setoguchi, Y. et al. Predictability of pressure ulcers based on operation duration, transfer activity, and body mass index through the use of an alternating decision tree. J. Med. Invest. 63, 248–255 (2016).

Download references

Author information

Chun, X.: Conceived and designed the study, acquisition and interpretation of data, revised the manuscript, and finalized the manuscript. Lin, Y.: Design, interpretation of data, revised the manuscript, and finalized the manuscript. Ma, JX.: Interpretation of data and revised the manuscript. He, J.: Analysis and interpretation of data, and revised the manuscript. Ye, LY.: Acquisition of data and revised manuscript. Yang, HM.: Analysis of data, revised manuscript.

Correspondence to Yan Lin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5