Accuracy and clinical effectiveness of risk prediction tools for pressure injury occurrence: An umbrella review

Bethany Hillier,Katie Scandrett,April Coombe,Tina Hernandez-Boussard,Ewout Steyerberg,Yemisi Takwoingi,Vladica Velickovic,Jacqueline Dinnes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.07.24307001

2024-09-25

Abstract:Background Pressure injuries (PIs) pose a substantial healthcare burden and incur significant costs worldwide. Several risk prediction tools to allow timely implementation of preventive measures and a subsequent reduction in healthcare system burden are available and in use. The ability of risk prediction tools to correctly identify those at high risk of PI (prognostic accuracy) and to have a clinically significant impact on patient management and outcomes (effectiveness) is not clear. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic accuracy and clinical effectiveness of risk prediction tools for PI, and to identify gaps in the literature. Methods and Findings The umbrella review was conducted according to Cochrane guidance. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, EPISTEMONIKOS, Google Scholar and reference lists were searched to identify relevant systematic reviews. Methodological quality was assessed using adapted AMSTAR-2 criteria. Results were described narratively. We identified 19 reviews that assessed prognostic accuracy and 11 that assessed clinical effectiveness of risk prediction tools for PI. The 19 reviews of prognostic accuracy evaluated 70 tools (39 scales and 31 machine learning models), with the Braden, Norton, Waterlow, Cubbin-Jackson scales (and modifications thereof) the most evaluated tools. Meta-analyses from a focused set of included reviews showed that the scales had sensitivities and specificities ranging from 53%-97% and 46%-84%, respectively. Only 2/19 reviews performed appropriate statistical synthesis and quality assessment. Two reviews assessing machine learning based algorithms reported high prognostic accuracy estimates, but some of which were sourced from the same data within which the models were developed, leading to potentially overoptimistic results. Two randomised trials assessing the effect of PI risk assessment tools (within the full test-intervention-outcome pathway) on the incidence of PIs were identified from the 11 systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness; both were included in a Cochrane review and assessed as high risk of bias. Both trials found no evidence of an effect on PI incidence. Conclusions Available systematic reviews suggest a lack of high-quality evidence for the accuracy of risk prediction tools for PI and limited reliable evidence for their use leading to a reduction in incidence of PI. Further research is needed to establish the clinical effectiveness of appropriately developed and validated risk prediction tools for PI.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The paper attempts to address the issue of evaluating the prognostic accuracy and clinical effectiveness of various tools used to predict the risk of pressure injury (PI) occurrence and to identify gaps in the literature. Specifically:

1. **Prognostic Accuracy**: The study examined the accuracy of various risk prediction tools in identifying high-risk individuals. These tools include traditional clinical scales (such as Braden, Norton, Waterlow, etc.) as well as machine learning-based methods.

2. **Clinical Effectiveness**: It explored whether these risk prediction tools can effectively reduce the incidence of pressure injuries by altering patient management. Although many tools demonstrated moderate to high accuracy, there is a lack of high-quality evidence proving their effectiveness in practical application.

3. **Quality of Literature Reviews**: By assessing the quality of existing systematic reviews, it was found that most systematic reviews are of low quality and have a certain risk of bias.

In summary, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of existing systematic reviews through an umbrella review approach to evaluate the prognostic accuracy and clinical effectiveness of pressure injury risk prediction tools and to highlight the shortcomings in current research.