1999
DOI: 10.1016/s0897-1897(99)80332-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The braden scale for pressure ulcer risk: Evaluating the predictive validity in black and latino/hispanic elders

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
40
0
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
40
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Usually, the score is dichotomized into categories of ''at risk'' or ''not at risk,'' based on the score obtained [19]. Data show that the Braden scale can predict pressure ulcer development across various subpopulations (ie, African Americans, whites, Hispanics [24,25], and Chinese [26]). …”
Section: Risk Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Usually, the score is dichotomized into categories of ''at risk'' or ''not at risk,'' based on the score obtained [19]. Data show that the Braden scale can predict pressure ulcer development across various subpopulations (ie, African Americans, whites, Hispanics [24,25], and Chinese [26]). …”
Section: Risk Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pressure higher than 32 mmHg is believed to cause blockage of capillary blood flow in the affected region, causing ischemic damage that manifests itself in the form of a sore [2]. In the general population, the frequency of pressure sores was found to be 0.04% -0.09%; in geriatric and nursing home populations this number ranged between 11.5% and 32%; for patients with spinal cord injuries (SCI) it is up to 80% [1,3,4].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…8,9 This number drops to as low as 20% correct when staging MS-DRG -eligible PrUs by nonexperts. 8 However, a recently developed tool, originally called the NE One Can Stage but recently renamed the NE1 Wound Assessment Tool (NE1 WAT; Medline Industries, Inc, Mundelein, Illinois), aided nonexpert clinicians in improving staging accuracy from 35% correct without the tool to 71% correct when using the tool for all types of PrUs and from 32% correct without the tool to 75% correct with the tool on MS-DRG -eligible PrUs, an improvement of greater than 100% in relative terms.…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%