-
Machine learning-based prediction models for pressure injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International Wound Journal Dec 2023Despite the fact that machine learning (ML) algorithms to construct predictive models for pressure injury development are widely reported, the performance of the model... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Despite the fact that machine learning (ML) algorithms to construct predictive models for pressure injury development are widely reported, the performance of the model remains unknown. The goal of the review was to systematically appraise the performance of ML models in predicting pressure injury. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, Grey literature and other databases were systematically searched. Original journal papers were included which met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Meta-analysis was performed with Metadisc software, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity and specificity as effect measures. Chi-squared and I tests were used to assess the heterogeneity. A total of 18 studies were included for the narrative review, and 14 of them were eligible for meta-analysis. The models achieved excellent pooled AUC of 0.94, sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI [0.78-0.80]) and specificity of 0.87 (95% CI [0.88-0.87]). Meta-regressions did not provide evidence that model performance varied by data or model types. The present findings indicate that ML models show an outstanding performance in predicting pressure injury. However, good-quality studies should be conducted to verify our results and confirm the clinical value of ML in pressure injury development.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Sensitivity and Specificity; ROC Curve; Machine Learning; Software
PubMed: 37340520
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14280 -
Diabetes/metabolism Research and Reviews Mar 2024This is the 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guideline on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes, which updates the 2019 guideline....
AIMS
This is the 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guideline on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes, which updates the 2019 guideline. This guideline is targeted at clinicians and other healthcare professionals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology to devise clinical questions and critically important outcomes in the PICO format, to conduct a systematic review of the medical-scientific literature including, where appropriate, meta-analyses, and to write recommendations and their rationale. The recommendations are based on the quality of evidence found in the systematic review, expert opinion where (sufficient) evidence was not available, and a weighing of the desirable and undesirable effects of an intervention, as well as patient preferences, costs, equity, feasibility and applicability.
RESULTS
We recommend screening a person with diabetes at very low risk of foot ulceration annually for the loss of protective sensation and peripheral artery disease, and screening persons at higher risk at higher frequencies for additional risk factors. For preventing a foot ulcer, educate persons at-risk about appropriate foot self-care, educate not to walk without suitable foot protection, and treat any pre-ulcerative lesion on the foot. Educate moderate-to-high risk people with diabetes to wear properly fitting, accommodative, therapeutic footwear, and consider coaching them to monitor foot skin temperature. Prescribe therapeutic footwear that has a demonstrated plantar pressure relieving effect during walking, to help prevent plantar foot ulcer recurrence. Consider advising people at low-to-moderate risk to undertake a, preferably supervised, foot-ankle exercise programme to reduce ulcer risk factors, and consider communicating that a total increase in weight-bearing activity of 1000 steps/day is likely safe with regards to risk of ulceration. In people with non-rigid hammertoe with pre-ulcerative lesion, consider flexor tendon tenotomy. We suggest not to use a nerve decompression procedure to help prevent foot ulcers. Provide integrated foot care for moderate-to-high-risk people with diabetes to help prevent (recurrence of) ulceration.
CONCLUSIONS
These recommendations should help healthcare professionals to provide better care for persons with diabetes at risk of foot ulceration, to increase the number of ulcer-free days and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.
Topics: Humans; Diabetic Foot; Foot Ulcer; Risk Factors; Evidence-Based Medicine; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 37302121
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.3651 -
Journal of Clinical Nursing Oct 2023Current evidence shows that medical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI) has a high prevalence (10%) and incidence (12%), and much research has been done to prevent... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Current evidence shows that medical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI) has a high prevalence (10%) and incidence (12%), and much research has been done to prevent MDRPI in recent years. However, to our knowledge, there is limited systematic review available on interventions and strategies to prevent MDRPI.
AIM
To synthesise research evidence on interventions and strategies used to prevent MDRPI.
METHODS
This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA Guidelines. We searched six databases including Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science and ProQuest with no restriction to year of publication. Data were extracted and checked by two authors independently. A narrative summary technique was used to describe the findings. Implementation strategies were grouped into six classifications: dissemination/implementation process/integration/capacity building/sustainability/scale-up strategies.
RESULTS
Twenty-four peer-reviewed papers met the inclusion criteria, which comprised of 11 quality improvement projects and 13 original research. Types of devices included respiratory devices (non-invasive ventilation mask, CPAP/BiPAP mask, endotracheal tube), gastrointestinal/urinary devices and other devices. Interventions used included the use of dressing, hyperoxygenated fatty acids, full-face mask, training, and/or multidisciplinary education, use of special securement devices or tube holder, repositioning, application of stockinette, early removal and foam ring use. Common implementation strategies included ongoing staff education, audit and standardising documentation or guideline development.
CONCLUSION
Much work on MDRPI prevention strategies has been undertaken. There were a variety of devices reported, however, it is evident that higher quality research is needed.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
Current evidence shows that interventions including use of dressing or special securement device, repositioning, and training/multidisciplinary education can be beneficial for MDRPI prevention. High-quality research, such as randomised controlled trials are needed to test the effectiveness of the interventions and their implementation strategies. No patient or public contribution.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Pressure Ulcer; Bandages
PubMed: 37300246
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.16790 -
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Jul 2023Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) constitute a significant challenge harming thousands of people worldwide yearly. While various tools and methods are used to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) constitute a significant challenge harming thousands of people worldwide yearly. While various tools and methods are used to identify pressure injuries, artificial intelligence (AI) and decision support systems (DSS) can help to reduce HAPIs risks by proactively identifying patients at risk and preventing them before harming patients.
OBJECTIVE
This paper comprehensively reviews AI and DSS applications for HAPIs prediction using Electronic Health Records (EHR), including a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted through PRISMA and bibliometric analysis. In February 2023, the search was performed using four electronic databases: SCOPIS, PubMed, EBSCO, and PMCID. Articles on using AI and DSS in the management of PIs were included.
RESULTS
The search approach yielded 319 articles, 39 of which have been included and classified into 27 AI-related and 12 DSS-related categories. The years of publication varied from 2006 to 2023, with 40% of the studies taking place in the US. Most studies focused on using AI algorithms or DSS for HAPIs prediction in inpatient units using various types of data such as electronic health records, PI assessment scales, and expert knowledge-based and environmental data to identify the risk factors associated with HAPIs development.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence in the existing literature concerning the real impact of AI or DSS on making decisions for HAPIs treatment or prevention. Most studies reviewed are solely hypothetical and retrospective prediction models, with no actual application in healthcare settings. The accuracy rates, prediction results, and intervention procedures suggested based on the prediction, on the other hand, should inspire researchers to combine both approaches with larger-scale data to bring a new venue for HAPIs prevention and to investigate and adopt the suggested solutions to the existing gaps in AI and DSS prediction methods.
Topics: Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Retrospective Studies; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Factors; Hospitals
PubMed: 37295900
DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2023.102560 -
Diabetes/metabolism Research and Reviews Mar 2024Offloading treatment is crucial to heal diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU). This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of offloading interventions for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Offloading treatment is crucial to heal diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU). This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of offloading interventions for people with DFU.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and trials registries for all studies relating to offloading interventions in people with DFU to address 14 clinical question comparisons. Outcomes included ulcers healed, plantar pressure, weight-bearing activity, adherence, new lesions, falls, infections, amputations, quality of life, costs, cost-effectiveness, balance, and sustained healing. Included controlled studies were independently assessed for risk of bias and had key data extracted. Meta-analyses were performed when outcome data from studies could be pooled. Evidence statements were developed using the GRADE approach when outcome data existed.
RESULTS
From 19,923 studies screened, 194 eligible studies were identified (47 controlled, 147 non-controlled), 35 meta-analyses performed, and 128 evidence statements developed. We found non-removable offloading devices likely increase ulcers healed compared to removable offloading devices (risk ratio [RR] 1.24, 95% CI 1.09-1.41; N = 14, n = 1083), and may increase adherence, cost-effectiveness and decrease infections, but may increase new lesions. Removable knee-high offloading devices may make little difference to ulcers healed compared to removable ankle-high offloading devices (RR 1.00, 0.86-1.16; N = 6, n = 439), but may decrease plantar pressure and adherence. Any offloading device may increase ulcers healed (RR 1.39, 0.89-2.18; N = 5, n = 235) and cost-effectiveness compared to therapeutic footwear and may decrease plantar pressure and infections. Digital flexor tenotomies with offloading devices likely increase ulcers healed (RR 2.43, 1.05-5.59; N = 1, n = 16) and sustained healing compared to devices alone, and may decrease plantar pressure and infections, but may increase new transfer lesions. Achilles tendon lengthening with offloading devices likely increase ulcers healed (RR 1.10, 0.97-1.27; N = 1, n = 64) and sustained healing compared to devices alone, but likely increase new heel ulcers.
CONCLUSIONS
Non-removable offloading devices are likely superior to all other offloading interventions to heal most plantar DFU. Digital flexor tenotomies and Achilles tendon lengthening in combination with offloading devices are likely superior for some specific plantar DFU locations. Otherwise, any offloading device is probably superior to therapeutic footwear and other non-surgical offloading interventions to heal most plantar DFU. However, all these interventions have low-to-moderate certainty of evidence supporting their outcomes and more high-quality trials are needed to improve our certainty for the effectiveness of most offloading interventions.
Topics: Humans; Diabetic Foot; Ulcer; Quality of Life; Wound Healing; Amputation, Surgical; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 37292021
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.3650 -
International Wound Journal Nov 2023We aimed to review and synthesise the evidence of the interventions of patients' and informal caregivers' engagement in managing chronic wounds at home. The research... (Review)
Review
We aimed to review and synthesise the evidence of the interventions of patients' and informal caregivers' engagement in managing chronic wounds at home. The research team used a systematic review methodology based on an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (PRISMA) and recommendations from the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial of the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Wanfang (Chinese), and CNKI database (Chinese) were searched from inception to May 2022. The following MESH terms were used: wound healing, pressure ulcer, leg ulcer, diabetic foot, skin ulcer, surgical wound, educational, patient education, counselling, self-care, self-management, social support, and family caregiver. Experimental studies involving participants with chronic wounds (not at risk of wounds) and their informal caregivers were screened. Data were extracted and the narrative was synthesised from the findings of included studies. By screening the above databases, 790 studies were retrieved, and 16 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were 6 RCTs and ten non-RCTs. Outcomes of chronic wound management included patient indicators, wound indicators, and family/caregiver indicators. Home-based interventions of patients or informal caregivers' engagement in managing chronic wounds at home may effectively improve patient outcomes and change wound care behaviour. What's more, educational/behavioural interventions were the primary type of intervention. Multiform integration of education and skills training on wound care and aetiology-based treatment was delivered to patients and caregivers. Besides, there are no studies entirely targeting elderly patients. Home-based chronic wound care training was important to patients with chronic wounds and their family caregivers, which may advance wound management outcomes. However, the findings of this systematic review were based on relatively small studies. We need more exploration of self and family-oriented interventions in the future, especially for older people affected by chronic wounds.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Caregivers; Social Support; Self Care; Pressure Ulcer; Skin Ulcer
PubMed: 37277908
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14219 -
Diabetes/metabolism Research and Reviews Mar 2024Prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes is important to help reduce the substantial burden on both individual and health resources. A comprehensive analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes is important to help reduce the substantial burden on both individual and health resources. A comprehensive analysis of reported interventions is needed to better inform healthcare professionals about effective prevention. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of interventions to prevent foot ulcers in persons with diabetes who are at risk thereof.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched the available scientific literature in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane databases and trial registries for original research studies on preventative interventions. Both controlled and non-controlled studies were eligible for selection. Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias of controlled studies and extracted data. A meta-analysis (using Mantel-Haenszel's statistical method and random effect models) was done when >1 RCT was available that met our criteria. Evidence statements, including the certainty of evidence, were formulated according to GRADE.
RESULTS
From the 19,349 records screened, 40 controlled studies (of which 33 were Randomised Controlled Trials [RCTs]) and 103 non-controlled studies were included. We found moderate certainty evidence that temperature monitoring (5 RCTs; risk ratio [RR]: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.84) and pressure-optimised therapeutic footwear or insoles (2 RCTs; RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.26-1.47) likely reduce the risk of plantar foot ulcer recurrence in people with diabetes at high risk. Further, we found low certainty evidence that structured education (5 RCTs; RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.37-1.19), therapeutic footwear (3 RCTs; RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.24-1.17), flexor tenotomy (1 RCT, 7 non-controlled studies, no meta-analysis), and integrated care (3 RCTs; RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.58-1.06) may reduce the risk of foot ulceration in people with diabetes at risk for foot ulceration.
CONCLUSIONS
Various interventions for persons with diabetes at risk for foot ulceration with evidence of effectiveness are available, including temperature monitoring (pressure-optimised) therapeutic footwear, structured education, flexor tenotomy, and integrated foot care. With hardly any new intervention studies published in recent years, more effort to produce high-quality RCTs is urgently needed to further improve the evidence base. This is especially relevant for educational and psychological interventions, for integrated care approaches for persons at high risk of ulceration, and for interventions specifically targeting persons at low-to-moderate risk of ulceration.
Topics: Humans; Diabetic Foot; Foot Ulcer; Foot; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 37243880
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.3652 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, pressure sores, or pressure injuries, are localised damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue, usually caused by intense or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, pressure sores, or pressure injuries, are localised damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue, usually caused by intense or long-term pressure, shear, or friction. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been widely used in the treatment of pressure ulcers, but its effect needs to be further clarified. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of NPWT for treating adult with pressure ulcers in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
On 13 January 2022, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP Search Portal for ongoing and unpublished studies and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of adults with pressure ulcers (stage II or above).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently conducted study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion with a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included eight RCTs with a total of 327 randomised participants. Six of the eight included studies were deemed to be at a high risk of bias in one or more risk of bias domains, and evidence for all outcomes of interest was deemed to be of very low certainty. Most studies had small sample sizes (range: 12 to 96, median: 37 participants). Five studies compared NPWT with dressings, but only one study reported usable primary outcome data (complete wound healing and adverse events). This study had only 12 participants and there were very few events; only one participant was healed in the study (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 61.74, very low-certainly evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with adverse events in the NPWT group and the dressing group, but the evidence for this outcome was also assessed as very low certainty (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.44, very low-certainty evidence). Changes in ulcer size, pressure ulcer severity, cost, and pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH) sores were also reported, but we were unable to draw conclusions due to the low certainly of the evidence. One study compared NPWT with a series of gel treatments, but this study provided no usable data. Another study compared NPWT with 'moist wound healing', which did not report primary outcome data. Changes in ulcer size and cost were reported in this study, but we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty; One study compared NPWT combined with internet-plus home care with standard care, but no primary outcome data were reported. Changes in ulcer size, pain, and dressing change times were reported, but we also assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty. None of the included studies reported time to complete healing, health-related quality of life, wound infection, or wound recurrence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy, safety, and acceptability of NPWT in treating pressure ulcers compared to usual care are uncertain due to the lack of key data on complete wound healing, adverse events, time to complete healing, and cost-effectiveness. Compared with usual care, using NPWT may speed up the reduction of pressure ulcer size and severity of pressure ulcer, reduce pain, and dressing change times. Still, trials were small, poorly described, had short follow-up times, and with a high risk of bias; any conclusions drawn from the current evidence should be interpreted with considerable caution. In the future, high-quality research with large sample sizes and low risk of bias is still needed to further verify the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of NPWT in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Future researchers need to recognise the importance of complete and accurate reporting of clinically important outcomes such as the complete healing rate, healing time, and adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Bandages; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Pressure Ulcer; Surgical Wound Infection; Ulcer
PubMed: 37232410
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011334.pub3 -
Diabetes/metabolism Research and Reviews Mar 2024Principles of wound management, including debridement, wound bed preparation, and newer technologies involving alternation of wound physiology to facilitate healing, are...
AIMS
Principles of wound management, including debridement, wound bed preparation, and newer technologies involving alternation of wound physiology to facilitate healing, are of utmost importance when attempting to heal a chronic diabetes-related foot ulcer. However, the rising incidence and costs of diabetes-related foot ulcer management necessitate that interventions to enhance wound healing of chronic diabetes-related foot ulcers are supported by high-quality evidence of efficacy and cost effectiveness when used in conjunction with established aspects of gold-standard multidisciplinary care. This is the 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) evidence-based guideline on wound healing interventions to promote healing of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes. It serves as an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We followed the GRADE approach by devising clinical questions and important outcomes in the Patient-Intervention-Control-Outcome (PICO) format, undertaking a systematic review, developing summary of judgements tables, and writing recommendations and rationale for each question. Each recommendation is based on the evidence found in the systematic review and, using the GRADE summary of judgement items, including desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patient values, resources required, cost effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and acceptability, we formulated recommendations that were agreed by the authors and reviewed by independent experts and stakeholders.
RESULTS
From the results of the systematic review and evidence-to-decision making process, we were able to make 29 separate recommendations. We made a number of conditional supportive recommendations for the use of interventions to improve healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. These include the use of sucrose octasulfate dressings, the use of negative pressure wound therapies for post-operative wounds, the use of placental-derived products, the use of the autologous leucocyte/platelet/fibrin patch, the use of topical oxygen therapy, and the use of hyperbaric oxygen. Although in all cases it was stressed that these should be used where best standard of care was not able to heal the wound alone and where resources were available for the interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
These wound healing recommendations should support improved outcomes for people with diabetes and ulcers of the foot, and we hope that widescale implementation will follow. However, although the certainty of much of the evidence on which to base the recommendations is improving, it remains poor overall. We encourage not more, but better quality trials including those with a health economic analysis, into this area.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Diabetic Foot; Placenta; Foot Ulcer; Wound Healing; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 37232034
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.3644 -
Advances in Skin & Wound Care Jun 2023
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Crush Injuries; Electric Stimulation
PubMed: 37212568
DOI: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000933732.56717.8a