Assessment of the accuracy of the CALCULATE scale for pressure injury in critically ill patients

Souza, Greice Kelli Coelho de; Kaiser, Dagmar Elaine; Morais, Paloma Pereira; Boniatti, Márcio Manozzo

doi:10.1016/j.aucc.2021.12.010

Cited by 7 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the studies allow us to subdivide the instruments into two big categories: the generalists, which are applicable in all care contexts, and the specifics, which are directed at adults in critical situation hospitalized in ICU. Thus, we identified six generalist instruments: Braden scale ( 36 , 26 - 27 , 29 - 32 , 34 , 37 , 40 , 43 - 47 ), Braden scale [ALB(Albumin)] ( 27 ), Emina ( 42 ), Norton MI [Modified by INSALUD ( Instituto Nacional de Salud Espanhol )] ( 35 ), RAPS (Risk Assessment Pressure Sore) ( 41 ) and Waterlow ( 40 , 46 ), and seven specific instruments: CALCULATE (Critical Care Pressure Ulcer Assessment Tool made Easy) ( 26 - 27 , 31 , 38 - 39 ), COMHON index (Nutrition and Hemodynamic Oxygenation of Conscious Mobility) ( 27 , 34 ), Cubbin & Jackson scale ( 44 - 45 , 47 ), EVARUCI ( Escala de Valoración Actual del riesgo de desarrollar Úlceras por presión en Cuidados Intensivos ) ( 33 , 35 , 42 - 43 ), RAPS-ICU (Intensive Care Units) ( 28 ), Song & Choi ( 47 ) and Suriaidi and Sanada ( 43 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Developed and validated through RAPS, the RAPS-ICU scale assembles three items: vital organ failure, mobility, moisture, sensorial perception, consciousness level, and special treatment, under mechanical ventilation, continuous dialysis and/or inotropic drugs. The score is from 1 to 4, except for vital organ failure, which is scored from 1 to 3, obtaining possible punctuation that varies from 6 to 23, in which the lowest score indicates a higher risk for developing PU ( 26 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CALCULATE, in its original version, is composed of eight risk factors, each one receives a point, and the total score is utilized to foresee the risk of PU, which may vary between 0 to 8. The higher the result, the higher the risk of developing PU ( 26 - 27 , 31 , 38 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…AUC || 0.71 ( 27 ). AUC || 0.91;0.92 ( 26 ). COMHON index S* 82.8%; S† 51.5%; PPV ‡ 55.2%; NPV § 80.6%; AUC || 0.7 ( 34 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…“The COMHON index had a relatively unsatisfactory performance in this study. However, presented higher specificity among the tests studied” ( 26 ). Cubbin & Jackson scale “The Cubbin and Jackson scale had a slightly better performance than the Braden scale” ( 44 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Risk assessment instruments for pressure ulcer in adults in critical situation: a scoping review

Picoito,

Lapuente,

Ramos

et al. 2023

Rev. Latino-Am. Enfermagem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: to map the instruments for risk assessment of pressure ulcers in adults in critical situation in intensive care units; identify performance indicators of the instrument, and the appreciation of users regarding the instruments’ use/limitations. Method: a scoping review. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews in the writing of the study. We carried out the searches in the EBSCOhost search tool for 8 databases, resulting in 1846 studies, of which 22 studies compose the sample. Results: we identified two big instrument groups: generalist [Braden, Braden (ALB), Emina, Norton-MI, RAPS, and Waterlow]; and specific (CALCULATE, Cubbin & Jackson, EVARUCI, RAPS-ICU, Song & Choi, Suriaidi and Sanada, and COMHON index). Regarding the predictive value, EVARUCI and CALCULATE presented better results for performance indicators. Concerning appreciation/limitations indicated by users, we highlight the CALCULATE scale, followed by EVARUCI and RAPS-ICU, although they still need future adjustments. Conclusion: the mapping of the literature showed that the evidence is sufficient to indicate one or more instruments for the risk assessment of pressure ulcers for adults in critical situation in intensive care units.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…AUC || 0.71 ( 27 ). AUC || 0.91;0.92 ( 26 ). COMHON index S* 82.8%; S† 51.5%; PPV ‡ 55.2%; NPV § 80.6%; AUC || 0.7 ( 34 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Risk assessment instruments for pressure ulcer in adults in critical situation: a scoping review

Picoito,

Lapuente,

Ramos

et al. 2023

Rev. Latino-Am. Enfermagem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Assessment of pressure injury risk in intensive care using the COMHON index: An interrater reliability study

Uslu,

Fulbrook,

Eren

et al. 2024

Intensive and Critical Care Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Instrumentos para la evaluación del riesgo de lesiones por presión en adultos en estado crítico: scoping review

Picoito,

Lapuente,

Ramos

et al. 2023

Rev. Latino-Am. Enfermagem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objetivo: mapear los instrumentos para la evaluación del riesgo de lesiones por presión en adultos en situación crítica en una unidad de terapia intensiva; identificar los indicadores de desempeño de los instrumentos y la apreciación de los usuarios con respecto al uso/limitaciones de los instrumentos. Método: scoping review. Para redactar el estudio se utilizó la extensión Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. La investigación se realizó mediante la herramienta de búsqueda EBSCOhost en 8 bases de datos, resultando 1846 estudios, de los cuales 22 conforman la muestra. Resultados: se identificaron dos grandes grupos de instrumentos: los generalistas [Braden, Braden (ALB), Emina, Norton-MI, RAPS y Waterlow]; y los específicos (CALCULATE, Cubbin & Jackson, EVARUCI, RAPS-ICU, Song & Choi, Suriaidi y Sanada y el índice COMHON). En cuanto al valor predictivo, EVARUCI y CALCULATE mostraron los mejores resultados de indicadores de desempeño. En cuanto a las apreciaciones/limitaciones señaladas por los usuarios, destaca la escala CALCULATE, seguida de la EVARUCI y la RAPS-ICU, aunque aún necesitan ajustes futuros. Conclusión: el mapeo mostró que las evidencias son suficientes para indicar uno o más instrumentos para la evaluación del riesgo de lesiones por presión en adultos críticos en una unidad de cuidados intensivos.

show abstract

Assessment of the accuracy of the CALCULATE scale for pressure injury in critically ill patients

Cited by 7 publications

References 19 publications

Risk assessment instruments for pressure ulcer in adults in critical situation: a scoping review

Risk assessment instruments for pressure ulcer in adults in critical situation: a scoping review

Assessment of pressure injury risk in intensive care using the COMHON index: An interrater reliability study

Instrumentos para la evaluación del riesgo de lesiones por presión en adultos en estado crítico: scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About