Predictive and concurrent validity of the <scp>B</scp>raden scale in long‐term care: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pressure ulcer prevention is an important long-term care (LTC) quality indicator. While the Braden Scale is a recommended risk assessment tool, there is a paucity of information specifically pertaining to its validity within the LTC setting. We, therefore, undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Braden Scale predictive and concurrent validity within this context. We searched the Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO and PubMed databases from 1985-2014 for studies containing the requisite information to analyze tool validity. Our initial search yielded 3,773 articles. Eleven datasets emanating from nine published studies describing 40,361 residents met all meta-analysis inclusion criteria and were analyzed using random effects models. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive values were 86%, 38%, 28%, and 93%, respectively. Specificity was poorer in concurrent samples as compared with predictive samples (38% vs. 72%), while PPV was low in both sample types (25 and 37%). Though random effects model results showed that the Scale had good overall predictive ability [RR, 4.33; 95% CI, 3.28-5.72], none of the concurrent samples were found to have "optimal" sensitivity and specificity. In conclusion, the appropriateness of the Braden Scale in LTC is questionable given its low specificity and PPV, in particular in concurrent validity studies. Future studies should further explore the extent to which the apparent low validity of the Scale in LTC is due to the choice of cutoff point and/or preventive strategies implemented by LTC staff as a matter of course.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.067 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".