Pressure injuries remain a serious health complication for patients and nursing staff. Evidence from the past decade has not been analysed through narrative synthesis yet. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and other reviews/sources were screened. Risk of bias was evaluated using a slightly modified QUIPS tool. Risk factor domains were used to assign (non)statistically independent risk factors. Hence, 67 studies with 679,660 patients were included. In low to moderate risk of bias studies, non-blanchable erythema reliably predicted pressure injury stage 2. Factors influencing mechanical boundary conditions, e.g., higher interface pressure or BMI < 18.5, as well as factors affecting interindividual susceptibility (male sex, older age, anemia, hypoalbuminemia, diabetes, hypotension, low physical activity, existing pressure injuries) and treatment-related aspects, such as length of stay in intensive care units, were identified as possible risk factors for pressure injury development. Health care professionals’ evidence-based knowledge of above-mentioned risk factors is vital to ensure optimal prevention and/or treatment. Openly accessible risk factors, e.g., sex, age, BMI, pre-existing diabetes, and non-blanchable erythema, can serve as yellow flags for pressure injury development. Close communication concerning further risk factors, e.g., anemia, hypoalbuminemia, or low physical activity, may optimize prevention and/or treatment. Further high-quality evidence is warranted.

Aims and objectives:Providing the first meta-analysis of risk factors for pressure ulcer development in adult patients.Background: Pressure ulcers remain a serious health complication for patients and nursing staff. However, there is a lack of statistical evidence for risk factors as previous research did not include any quantitative synthesis.Design: Meta-analysis, using PRISMA guidelines.Methods: Studies from PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and other reviews and sources were screened and checked against the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated using a slightly modified QUIPS tool. Data regarding population, design, statistical analysis and risk factors were extracted. Meta-analysis with comparable studies was conducted for age, sex, and Braden scale. The sub-group analysis was used to account for heterogeneity.Results: 28 studies with 570,162 patients were entered in meta-analysis. Older age and a low total Braden scale score increased the risk for pressure ulcers. All subscales excluding 'moisture' reached significance in meta-analysis based only on few studies, however, limiting overall evidence. Male sex achieved mixed results, too. Conclusion:The first meta-analytic analysis shows evidence for age and Braden scale as risk factors for pressure ulcer development. Limitations regarding study quality and heterogeneity must be considered, highlighting the need for unifying certain conditions in risk factor research.Relevance to clinical practice: Patients at risk for new pressure ulcers can be identified by their total Braden score and age, whereas the latter is also connected to deeper pressure ulcers. Nurses and health personnel should pay great attention to patients in older age and undergo specific training to utilise and evaluate the Braden scale effectively, if necessary.