Risk factors of pressure injury in elderly inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to systematically identify and synthesize the risk factors contributing to pressure injury in elderly inpatients. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were systematically searched from database inception to March 1, 2025. Two researchers independently screened the retrieved studies and extracted the data. The risk of bias was assessed using the AHRQ criteria or the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis was performed using R version 4.5.0. Results: A total of 3,629 studies were retrieved, and 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. Altogether, 70,340 participants were included in the analysis, of whom 5,792 developed PI during hospitalization, corresponding to an overall prevalence of 8.2%. Meta-analysis showed that age (OR = 1.06, 95%CI: 1.03 to 1.09), immobility (OR = 4.54, 95%CI: 3.09 to 6.67), incontinence (OR = 4.54, 95%CI: 2.33 to 42.75), nutritional risk (OR = 3.00, 95%CI: 1.78 to 5.05), diabetes (OR = 1.60, 95%CI: 1.21 to 2.11), durations of prior ICU stay (OR = 1.93, 95%CI: 1.46 to 2.55), time from admission to surgery (OR = 2.07, 95%CI: 1.60 to 2.67) and length of stay (OR = 1.05, 95%CI: 1.01 to 1.01) were associated with pressure injury in elderly inpatients. Conclusions: Pressure injury remains a serious and preventable complication among elderly inpatients. This study provided a comprehensive evaluation of the risk factors of pressure injury development among elderly inpatients, identifying eight major contributors. These findings may promote valuable evidence to inform clinical assessment, risk stratification, and the development of targeted prevention strategies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".