Incidence, prevalence and risk factors of device‐related pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit: A meta‐analysis of 10,084 patients from 11 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Device-related pressure injuries (DRPIs) prevail in the intensive care unit (ICU) and have much to do with medical devices and patients' conditions. This meta-analysis aims to systematically assess the incidence, prevalence and risk factors related to DRPIs among adults in ICU. Web of Science, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed and CINAHL were searched from inception to March 2023. Observational studies were included, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess literature quality. The primary outcomes were the incidence, prevalence and risk factors regarding DRPIs among adults in ICU. The 19 studies conformed to the criteria for inclusion in the review. The estimated pooled incidence of DRPIs was 14.7% (95% CI: 9.7%-19.6%) in 10 studies (4866 participants). The estimated pooled prevalence of DRPIs was 19.0% (95% CI: 13.6%-24.3%) in 9 studies (5218 participants). The most significant risk factor for DRPIs was using mechanical ventilation. The pooled analysis of the four studies showed that DRPIs were more likely to occur in patients who required mechanical ventilation compared with patients who did not use mechanical ventilation (OR: 9.67, 95% CI: 5.03-18.61, p < 0.001) and using vasopressors, age, length of ICU stays, APACHE II score, Braden score, fever, sex, oedema, diabetes and number of medical devices, SOFA score was also related to pressure injuries risk. The incidence and prevalence of DRPIs in adult ICU were high, and the most significant risk factor for DRPIs was using mechanical ventilation. It is imminent to identify patients of increased risk with DRPIs early.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".