Evaluation of the risk prediction model of pressure injuries in hospitalized patient: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims and Objectives: The main aim of this study is to synthesize the prevalent predictive models for pressure injuries in hospitalized patients, with the goal of identifying common predictive factors linked to pressure injuries in hospitalized patients. This endeavour holds the potential to provide clinical nurses with a valuable reference for providing targeted care to high-risk patients. Background: Pressure injuries (PIs) are a frequently occurring health problem throughout the world. There are mounting studies about risk prediction model of PIs reported and published. However, the prediction performance of the models is still unclear. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Chinese databases including CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Database, Weipu Database and CBM (China Biology Medicine). Methods: This systematic review was conducted following PRISMA recommendations. The databases of Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CNKI, Weipu Database, Wanfang Database and CBM were searched for all studies published before September 2023. We included studies with cohort, case-control designs, reporting the development of risk model and have been validated externally and internally among the hospitalized patients. Two researchers selected the retrieved studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and critically evaluated the quality of studies based on the CHARMS checklist. The PRISMA guideline was used to report the systematic review and meta-analysis. Results: Sixty-two studies were included, which contained 99 pressure injuries risk prediction models. The AUC (area under ROC curve) of modelling in 32 prediction models were reported ranged from .70 to .99, while the AUC of verification in 38 models were reported ranged from .70 to .98. Gender (OR = 1.41, CI: .99 similar to 1.31), age (WMD = 8.81, CI: 8.11 similar to 9.57), diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.64, CI: 1.36 similar to 1.99), mechanical ventilation (OR = 2.71, CI: 2.05 similar to 3.57), length of hospital stay (WMD = 7.65, CI: 7.24 similar to 8.05) were the most common predictors of pressure injuries. Conclusion: Studies of PIs risk prediction model in hospitalized patients had high research quality, and the risk prediction models also had good predictive performance. However, some of the included studies lacked of internal or external validation in modelling, which affected the stability and extendibility. The aged, male patient in ICU, albumin, haematocrit, low haemoglobin level, diabetes, mechanical ventilation and length of stay in hospital were high-risk factors for pressure injuries in hospitalized patients. In the future, it is recommended that clinical nurses, in practice, select predictive models with better performance to identify high-risk patients based on the actual situation and provide care targeting the high-risk factors to prevent the occurrence of diseases.