Risk factors of incontinence-associated dermatitis among critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is increasingly found among critically ill patients, but the risk factors for IAD in these patients are currently unclear. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to identify the risk factors of IAD in critically ill patients. Methods Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were systemically searched until July 2022. The studies were selected based on inclusion criteria, and data were independently extracted by two researchers. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Odds ratios (ORs) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to identify significant differences in the risk factors. The I 2 test was used to estimate the heterogeneity of studies, and Egger's test was used to assess the potential publication bias. Results A total of 7 studies enrolling 1,238 recipients were included in the meta-analysis. Age ≥ 60 (OR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.38~3.42), female sex (OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.32~2.34), dialysis (OR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.51~4.73), fever (OR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.03~2.33), vasoactive agent (OR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.45~3.80), PAT score ≥ 7 (OR = 5.23, 95% CI: 3.15~8.99), frequency of bowel movement > 3times/d (OR = 5.33, 95% CI: 3.19~8.93), and liquid stool (OR = 2.61, 95% CI: 1.56~4.38) were the risk factors of IAD among critically ill patients. Conclusions Many risk factors are related to IAD among critically ill patients. Nursing staff should pay more attention to evaluating the risk of IAD and enhance the care of high-risk groups.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".