S* 66.5%; S† 62.2%; PPV‡ 12.5%; NPV§ 98.5%; AUC|| 0.69(3033. Hyun S, Moffatt-Bruce S, Cooper C, Hixon B, Kaewprag P. Prediction Model for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcer Development: Retrospective Cohort Study. JMIR Med Inform. 2019 Jul 18;7(3). https://doi.org/10.2196/13785 https://doi.org/10.2196/13785...
).
AUC|| 0.61(3134. Saranholi T. Avaliação da acurácia das escalas CALCULATE e Braden na predição do risco de LPP em unidade de terapia intensiva [Thesis]. Botucatu: Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”; 2018 [cited 2023 Jan 13]. 42 p. Available from: https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/handle/11449/153319/saranholi_tl_me_bot.pdf?sequence=4 https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/h...
).
S* 81%; S† 56%, PPV‡ 65%; NPV§ 74%; AUC|| 0.70(3235. Han Y, Choi J, Jin Y, Jin T, Lee S-M. Usefulness of the Braden Scale in Intensive Care Units - A Study Based on Electronic Health Record Data. J Nurs Care Qual. 2017: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000305 https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.000000000000...
).
S* 90%; S† 26%; PPV‡ 31%; NPV§ 78%; AUC|| 0.63(3437. Roca-Biosca A, Rubio-Rico L, Fernández M, Grau N, Garijo G, Fernández F. Predictive validity of the Braden scale for assessing risk of developing pressure ulcers and dependence-related lesions. J Wound Care. 2017 Sep 2;26(9):528-36. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.9.528 https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.9....
).
S* 74.4%; S† 78.6; PPV‡ 28.6; NPV§ 96.4; AUC|| 0.79(3614. Deng X, Yu T, Hu A. Predicting the Risk for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Critical Care Patients. Crit Care Nurse. 2017 Aug;37(4):1-11. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017548 https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017548...
).
S* 66.7%; S† 55.8%; PPV‡ 11.7%; NPV§ 95%; AUC|| 0.66(3739. Lima-Serrano M, González-Méndez M, Martín-Castano C, Alonso-Araujo I, Lima-Rodríguez J. Predictive validity and reliability of the Braden scale for risk assessment of pressure ulcers in an intensive care unit. Med Intensiva. 2017:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medin.2016.12.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medin.2016.12....
).
S* 41%; S† 21%; AUC|| 0.29(4042. Borghardt A, Prado T, Araújo T, Rogensk N, Bringuente M. Evaluation of the pressure ulcers risk scales with critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study. Rev. Latino-Am Enfermagem. 2015;23(1):28-35. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.0144.2521 https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.0144.2...
).
S* 78%, 95%, 71.4%; S† 29%, 45%, 83.1%; PPV‡ 70%, 52%, 31.3%; NPV§ 38%, 94%, 96.4%(4244. Roca-Biosca A, Garcia-Fernandez F, Chacon-Garcés S, Rubio-Rico L, Olona-Cabases M, Anguera-Saperas L, et al. Validation of EMINA and EVARUCI scales for assessing the risk of developing pressure ulcers in critical patients. Enfermería Intensiva. 2015;26(1):15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfi.2014.10.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfi.2014.10.0...
).
S* 93.2%; S† 16.6%; PPV‡ 15.6%; NPV§ 93.7%; AUC|| 0.71(4446. Kim E, Choi M, Lee J, Kim Y. Reusability of EMR Data for Applying Cubbin and Jackson Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale in Critical Care Patients. Healthc Inform Res. 2013;19(4):261-70. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2013.19.4.261 https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2013.19.4.26...
).
S* 91.7%; S† 63.0%; PPV‡ 19.0%; NPV§ 98.8%; AUC|| 0.15(4547. Liu M, Chen W, Liao Q, Gu Q, Hsu M, Poon A. Validation of two pressure ulcer risk assessment scales among chinese ICU patients. Rev Enferm Refer. 2013;3(9): 145-50. https://doi.org/10.12707/RIII12146 https://doi.org/10.12707/RIII12146...
).
S* 31.2%; S† 88.2%; PPV‡ 71.4%; VPN§ 66.4%(4648. Araújo T, Araújo MFM, Cavalcante C, Barbosa GM Junior, Caetano JA. Accuracy of two pressure ulcer risk scales for patients with in critical condition. Rev Enferm UERJ [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2023 Jan 13]:19(3):381-5. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marcio-Flavio-Araujo/publication/286702290_Accuracy_of_two_pressure_ulcer_risk_scales_for_patients_with_in_critical_condition/links/57ac79b808ae0932c97484a2/Accuracy-of-two-pressure-ulcer-risk-scales-for-patients-with-in-critical-condition.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mar...
).
S* 92.5%; S† 69.8%, PPV‡ 40.6%, NPV§ 97.6%; AUC|| 0.88(4749. Kim E, Lee S, Lee E, Eom M. Comparison of the predictive validity among pressure ulcer risk assessment scales for surgical ICU patients. Aust J Adv Nurs [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2023 Jan 13];26(4):87-94. Available from: https://www.ajan.com.au/archive/Vol26/26-4_Eom.pdf https://www.ajan.com.au/archive/Vol26/26...
).
AUC|| 0.71; 0.70(2730. Theeranut A, Ninbanphot S, Limpawattana P. Comparison of four pressure ulcer risk assessment tools in critically ill patients. Nurs Crit Care. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511...
). AUC|| 0.67(2730. Theeranut A, Ninbanphot S, Limpawattana P. Comparison of four pressure ulcer risk assessment tools in critically ill patients. Nurs Crit Care. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511...
).
S* 89%; S† 28%; AUC|| 0.78(2932. Wei M, Wu L, Chen Y, Fu Q, Chen W, Yang D. Meta-analysis: Predictive validity of Braden for pressure ulcers in critical care. Nurs Crit Care. 2020:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12500 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12500...
).
|