Development and validation 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,Hillier,B.,Scandrett,K.,Coombe,A.,Hernandez-Boussard,T.,Steyerberg,E.,Takwoingi,Y.,Velickovic,V.,Dinnes,J.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.07.24306999
2024-05-10
MedRxiv
Abstract:Background Pressure injuries (PIs) place a substantial burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Risk stratification of those who are at risk of developing PIs allows preventive interventions to be focused on patients who are at the highest risk. The considerable number of risk assessment scales and prediction models available underscore the need for a thorough evaluation of their development, validation and clinical utility. Our objectives were to identify and describe available risk prediction tools for PI occurrence, their content and development and validation methods used. Methods 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. Risk of bias was assessed using adapted AMSTAR-2 criteria. Results were described narratively. All included reviews contributed to build a comprehensive list of risk prediction tools. Results We identified five systematic reviews describing the development and validation of risk prediction tools for pressure injuries, 16 that assessed the prognostic accuracy of the tools and 10 that assessed the clinical effectiveness. Of the five reviews of model development and validation, four included only machine learning models. One review included detail about external validation, and this was the only review to include model performance metrics. Where quality assessment was completed (3 out of 5 reviews), most prediction tools were assessed by review authors as being at high risk of bias and no tools were assessed as being at low risk of bias. Conclusions Available tools do not meet current standards for the development or reporting of risk prediction models. The majority of tools have not been externally validated. Standardised and rigorous approaches to risk prediction model development and validation are needed. Registration The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/tepyk).