Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2006 Dec;3(4):344-53.
doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2006.00261.x.

Estimating the risk of pressure ulcer development: is it truly evidence based?

Affiliations
Review

Estimating the risk of pressure ulcer development: is it truly evidence based?

Catherine A Sharp et al. Int Wound J. 2006 Dec.

Abstract

The aim of the current method of screening patients is to identify risk factors that are considered to cause, or contribute to, pressure ulcer (PU) development. Yet screening has not resulted in a reduction in pressure ulcer development. The literature was reviewed to identify the level of evidence for the inclusion of risk factors in six published pressure ulcer risk-screening tools. Evidence for each risk factor was ranked according to the National Health and Medical Research Council levels of evidence with a modification. Three of 19 risk factors (mobility, continence and nutrition) included in more than one screening tool have been tested for association with pressure ulcer development. While varying degrees of immobility and decreased serum albumin are reported to significantly increase the risk for PU development, the direction of the relationship, i.e. causal or resultant of PU, is not always clear. No publications reported a significant causal link between incontinence and PU development. Inclusion of risk factors for PU in screening tools must be evidence based. Until other risk factors have been tested for positive predictive value, the Ramstadius approach to screening is the only evidence-based tool.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. New South Wales Health Department . Clinical Practices Pressure Ulcer Prevention. Circular 2002/77. North Sydney: NSW Health Department, 2002. [Re‐issued as Policy Directive 2005_257].
    1. Milward PA. Walsall Community Pressure Sore Risk Score Calculator. Prim Intent 1995;3:22–7.
    1. Norton D, McLaren R, Exton‐Smith AN. An investigation of geriatric nursing problems in hospital. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1962.
    1. Waterlow JA. A risk assessment card. Nurs Times 1985;81:49–55. - PubMed
    1. Braden B, Bergstrom B. A conceptual schema for the study of the etiology of pressure sores. Rehab Nurs 1987;12:8–16. - PubMed

MeSH terms