4.1 Review

The incidence and prevalence of medical device-related pressure ulcers in intensive care: a systematic review

期刊

JOURNAL OF WOUND CARE
卷 28, 期 8, 页码 512-521

出版社

MA HEALTHCARE LTD
DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2019.28.8.512

关键词

critical care; device-related; incidence; pressure injury; pressure ulcer; prevalence

资金

  1. PhD Clinician Researcher Scholarship by Sydney Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The objective of this review was to synthesise the literature and evaluate the incidence, prevalence and severity of medical devicerelated pressure ulcers (MDRPU) in adult intensive care patients. Method: Electronic databases and additional grey literature were searched for publications between 2000 and 2017. Outcome measures included cumulative incidence or incidence rate, point prevalence or period prevalence as a primary outcome and the severity and location of the pressure ulcer (PU) as secondary outcome measures. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a nine-item checklist for prevalence studies. The heterogeneity was evaluated using 12 statistic. Results: We included 13 studies in this review. Prevalence was reported more frequently than incidence. Pooled data demonstrated a high variation in the incidence and prevalence rates ranging from 0.9% to 41.2% in incidence and 1.4% to 121% in prevalence. Heterogeneity was high. Mucosal pressure injuries were the most common stage reported in the incidence studies whereas category II followed by category I were most commonly reported in the prevalence studies. In the incidence studies, the most common location was the ear and in the prevalence studies it was the nose. Conclusion: While MDRPU are common in intensive care patients, it is an understudied area. Inconsistency in the staging of MDRPU, along with variations in data collection methods, study design and reporting affect the reported incidence and prevalence rates. Standardisation of data reporting and collection method is essential for pooling of future studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据