Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Norton and Braden Scales in Determining the Risk of Pressure Injury in Elderly Patients.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 NURSING Clinical Nurse Specialist Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1097/NUR.0000000000000815
Ibrahim Kiyat, Ayfer Ozbas
{"title":"Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Norton and Braden Scales in Determining the Risk of Pressure Injury in Elderly Patients.","authors":"Ibrahim Kiyat, Ayfer Ozbas","doi":"10.1097/NUR.0000000000000815","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the reliability and predictive validity of Norton and Braden scales in determining the risk of pressure injury in elderly patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This research used a comparative design. One hundred thirty elderly patients participated in the study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The daily pressure injury risk of participants was evaluated by a researcher using both the Norton and Braden scales in a consecutive manner.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of patients was 75.1 ± 8.5 years, and that for those without and with pressure injury development was 75.0 ± 8.3 years and 76.1 ± 9.7 years (P < .001), respectively. The reliability coefficients of the Norton and Braden scales were .82 and .89, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Norton Scale were 100%, 40.7%, 20.2%, and 100%, and those of the Braden Scale were 100%, 32.7%, 18.3%, and 100%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The reliability of both scales for elderly patients was found to be high, and their ability to differentiate patients at risk was comparable. However, both scales had low specificity. Further research is needed to develop scales that have higher predictive validity for the elderly population, taking into account other risk factors that influence total scale scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":55249,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Nurse Specialist","volume":"38 3","pages":"141-146"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Nurse Specialist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000815","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To compare the reliability and predictive validity of Norton and Braden scales in determining the risk of pressure injury in elderly patients.

Design: This research used a comparative design. One hundred thirty elderly patients participated in the study.

Methods: The daily pressure injury risk of participants was evaluated by a researcher using both the Norton and Braden scales in a consecutive manner.

Results: The mean age of patients was 75.1 ± 8.5 years, and that for those without and with pressure injury development was 75.0 ± 8.3 years and 76.1 ± 9.7 years (P < .001), respectively. The reliability coefficients of the Norton and Braden scales were .82 and .89, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Norton Scale were 100%, 40.7%, 20.2%, and 100%, and those of the Braden Scale were 100%, 32.7%, 18.3%, and 100%, respectively.

Conclusions: The reliability of both scales for elderly patients was found to be high, and their ability to differentiate patients at risk was comparable. However, both scales had low specificity. Further research is needed to develop scales that have higher predictive validity for the elderly population, taking into account other risk factors that influence total scale scores.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较诺顿量表和布莱登量表在确定老年患者压伤风险方面的预测效力。
目的:比较诺顿量表和布莱登量表在确定老年患者压力损伤风险方面的可靠性和预测有效性:本研究采用比较设计。130名老年患者参与了研究:方法:研究人员使用诺顿和布莱登量表连续评估参与者的日常压力伤害风险:患者的平均年龄为(75.1 ± 8.5)岁,无压伤和有压伤的患者的平均年龄分别为(75.0 ± 8.3)岁和(76.1 ± 9.7)岁(P < .001)。诺顿和布莱登量表的信度系数分别为 0.82 和 0.89。诺顿量表的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为100%、40.7%、20.2%和100%,布莱登量表的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为100%、32.7%、18.3%和100%:两种量表在老年患者中的信度都很高,区分高危患者的能力也相当。然而,两种量表的特异性都较低。考虑到影响量表总分的其他风险因素,需要进一步研究开发对老年人群具有更高预测有效性的量表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
83
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of Clinical Nurse Specialist™: The International Journal for Advanced Nursing Practice is to disseminate outcomes of clinical nurse specialist practice, to foster continued development o fthe clinical nurse specialist role, and to highlight clinical nurse specialist contributions to advancing nursing practice and health policy globally. Objectives of the journal are: 1. Disseminate knowledge about clinical nurse specialist competencies and the education and regulation of practice; 2. Communicate outcomes of clinical nurse specialist practice on quality, safety, and cost of nursing and health services across the continuum of care; 3. Promote evidence-based practice and innovation in the transformation of nursing and health policy for the betterment of the public welfare; 4. Foster intra-professional and interdisciplinary dialogue addressing nursing and health services for specialty populations in diverse care settings adn cultures.
期刊最新文献
A Letter to the Editor. Authorship and Acknowledgment in Nursing Publications: It's a Matter of Ethics. Clinical Nurse Specialist: Rounding to Reduce Indwelling Urinary Catheter Utilization at a Regional Hospital. Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Inpatients on Intravenous Insulin. Developing a Competency Assessment Index System for Hematology Nurses in China: Delphi Study Insights.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1