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

IF 16.4 1区化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research 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":"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.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000815","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","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

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

Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合

CiteScore

31.40

自引率

1.10%

发文量

312

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.