Günes ÜY, Efteli E,142015,Turkey |
RAPS (≤27) |
Sensitivity 0.742 Specificity 0.318 |
PPV=0.387 NPV=0.913 |
RAPS=0.50 |
The RAPS scale presented low specificity and low positive predictive value for scores≤ 27. |
Borghardt AT et al. 24 2015, Brazil |
|
Sensitivity Waterlow=0.710 Braden=0.530 Specificity Waterlow=0.470 Braden=0.390 |
ND
|
Waterlow=0.578 Braden=0.435 |
The Waterlow scale presented better predictive capacity. |
Hyun S et al.25 2013,USA |
Braden (13) |
Sensitivity Braden=0.781 Specificity Braden=0.469 |
PPV Braden=0.136 NPV Braden=0.952 |
Braden=0.672 |
The Braden scale presented low accuracy values and risk prediction. |
Souza B17, 2013, Portugal |
Sunderland (28)C&J (29)Braden (16) |
Sensitivity S=0.60 C&J=0.733 Braden=1.00 Specificity S=0.867 C&J=0.867 Braden=0.053 |
PPV S=0.474 C&J=0.524 Braden=0.174 NPV S=0.915 C&J=0.942 Braden=1.00 |
S=0.860 C&J=0.910 Braden=0.720 |
The Cubbin-Jackson scale presented better predictive capacity compared with the Sunderland and Braden scales. |
Serpa LF et al., 72011, Brazil |
Braden (13) |
Sensitivity Braden=0.714 Specificity Braden=0.831 |
PPV Braden=0.313 NPV Braden=0.964 |
Braden=0.800 |
The score 13 of the Braden scale showed better performance to predict PI development risk. |
Araújo TM et al., 262011, Brazil |
Braden (16) Waterlow (10) |
Sensitivity Waterlow=1.00 Braden=0.312 Specificity Waterlow=0.117 Braden=0.882 |
PPV Waterlow=1.00 Braden=0.714 NPV Waterlow=1.00 Braden=0.644 |
ND
|
The Waterlow scale achieved better predictive capacity compared with the Braden scale. |
Costa IG et al.,222011, Brazil |
Braden (14) |
Sensitivity Braden=0.950 Specificity Braden=0.450 |
PPV Braden=0.520 NPV Braden=0.940 |
ND
|
The Braden scale is an effective instrument to early identify PI risk. |
Kim E et al.,18 2009, South Korea |
Braden (14)C&J (28)Sond & Choi (21) |
Sensitivity Braden=0.925 S&C=0.950 C&J=0.950 Specificity Braden=0.698 S&C=0.692 C&J=0.815 |
PPV Braden=0.406 S&C=0.408 C&J=0.535 NPV Braden=0.967 S&C=0.984 C&J=0.986 |
Braden=0.881 S&C=0.890 C&J=0.902 |
The results showed better predictive capacity of the C&J scale. |
González-Ruiz JM et al.,272008,Spain |
EVARUCI (10) |
Sensitivity EVARUCI=1.00 Specificity EVARUCI=0.686 |
PPV EVARUCI=0.407 NPV EVARUCI=1.00 |
EVARUCI=0.938 |
The EVARUCI scale proved to be a valid scale for PI risk prediction. |
Suriadi et al.,28 2008, Indonesia |
Suriadi & Sanada (4) |
Sensitivity SS =0.810 Specificity SS =0.830 |
PPV SS =0.650 NPV SS =0.910 |
SS =0.888 |
The Suriadi & Sanada scale presented good predictive capacity for PI risk assessment. |
Feuchtinger J et al.,292007, Germany |
Norton (25)Braden (20)4-factor model (2) |
Sensitivity Braden=0.970 Norton=0.5804F=0.850 Specificity Braden=0.050 Norton=0.4704F=0.310 |
PPV Braden=0.690 Norton=0.700 4F=0.700 NPV Braden=0.500 Norton=0.3504F=0.380 |
ND
|
The scales showed a good predictive value; however, adjustment of the cut-off point according to characteristics of a specific group of patients is required. |
Suriadi et al.,30 2006, Japan |
Braden(12) Multi-pad pressure evaluator (35)Braden + Multi-pad pressure evaluator (13) |
Sensitivity Braden=0.800 MPPE =0.710 Braden+MPPE =0.740 Specificity Braden=0.540 MPPE =0.740 Braden+MPPE =0.730 |
PPV Braden=0.470 MPPE =0.470 Braden+MPPE =0.580 NPV Braden=0.840 MPPE =0.840 Braden+MPPE =0.850 |
Braden=0.790 MPPE =0.810 Braden+MPPE =0.810 |
The use of the Multi-pad pressure evaluator scale is suggested for better PI risk assessment samples in ICUs. |
Seongsook J et al.,312004, South Korea |
C&J (16) Braden (16)Douglas (18) |
Sensitivity C&J=0.890 Douglas=1.00 Braden=0.970 Specificity C&J=0.610 Douglas=0.180 Braden=0.260 |
PPV C&J=0.51 Douglas=0.340 Braden=0.370 NPV C&J=0.95 Douglas=1.00 Braden=0.950 |
C&J=0.826 Douglas=0.791 Braden=0.707 |
The C&J scale presented better predictive values. |