The relationship between pressure injury complication and mortality risk of older patients in follow‐up: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Pressure injuries (PIs) have now become a common complication of the elderly patients. Some studies have observed that pressure injuries may increase mortality, but this area of evidence has not been evaluated and summarised. The aim of this study was to compare the mortality of patients with pressure injuries and those without pressure injuries. A meta-analysis of observational studies was performed. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to April 2019. Studies about mortality among the elderly patients with and without pressure injuries were included. Methodological quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The fixed effect or random effect model was determined by the test of heterogeneity. The subgroup analysis was performed based on the pressure injuries stages, the region, and the type of study design. The meta-regression analysis was performed to investigate the relationship between the mortality and patients' enrolled year, average age, the incidence of pressure injuries, and gender ratio. The sensitivity analysis was used to explore the impact of an individual study by excluding one at a time. The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in terms of the comparison of two groups were extracted for meta-analysis. A survival curve between two groups by individual patient-level was drew. Eight studies with 5523 elderly patients were included in the analysis. Follow-up periods for the included studies ranged from about 0.5 to 3 years. The elderly patients who complicated with pressure injuries had a higher risk of death. The pooled HR was 1.78 (95% CI 1.46-2.16). A funnel plot showed no publication bias. Further subgroup analysis showed that HR values for the patient stage 3 to 4 pressure injuries (HR:2.41; 95% CI:1.08-5.37) were higher than stage 1-4 and 2-4 pressure injuries (HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.35-2.05; HR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.16-2.60). The meta-regression analysis found that patients' enrolled year, average age, the incidence of pressure injuries, and gender ratio were not the sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses showed that the outcomes of the study did not change after removing the Onder's article. The survival curve at the individual patient-level also indicated that patients complicated with pressure injuries significantly increased the risk of death (HR: 1.958; 95% CI: 1.79-2.14) in elderly patients. Our meta-analysis indicated that patients complicated with pressure injuries are estimated to have a two times higher risk on mortality compared with patients without pressure injuries during the 3 years follow-up period. Particular attention should be given to the elderly patients who are at higher risk for mortality.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,018 | 0,038 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».