Personal risk factors for pressure injuries among wheelchair users: an umbrella review of new insights in 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pressure injuries (PrI) are a prevalent and serious health issue for wheelchair users. This study aims to identify the personal factors associated with PrI occurrence and their significance by synthesizing existing literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review, systematically searching four databases for reviews published from 2007 to May 2024. The search terms were selected by an independent, experienced librarian. To evaluate the risk of bias and methodological quality of the included studies, we applied the ROBIS tool and the GROOVE procedure. Identified risk factors were categorized into relevant groups. RESULTS: After an assessment of 5,797 potential articles, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 43% were systematic reviews, 24% meta-analyses, 19% literature reviews, 9% scoping reviews, and 5% narrative reviews. The findings revealed 33 individual personal factors, categorized into the general health, clinical condition, initial pathology, environment/lifestyle, person-related, and combined risk factor groups. Key individual risk factors frequently encountered among wheelchair users included advanced age, obesity, spinal cord injury (SCI), higher levels of SCI, diabetes, infections, incontinence, immobility, respiratory and perfusion impairments, sensory perception issues, and low physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to synthesize literature on internal risk factors associated with PrI among wheelchair users. It confirmed well-established factors such as SCI, diabetes, and aging. The findings provide healthcare professionals and decision-makers with critical information for the prevention and management of PrI in this population, offering new insights into adopting a holistic approach to assessing and addressing individual risks factors.
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 | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".