The relationship between pressure injury complication and mortality risk of older patients in follow‐up: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".