↓ Skip to main content

Risk factors for pressure injury development in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Risk factors for pressure injury development in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0451-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona Coyer, Nahla Tayyib

Abstract

Pressure injuries (PIs) create a significant burden in the health care system. Up to 49% of critically ill patients develop PIs. Identifying and understanding potential risk factors is essential to the provision of effective targeted prevention strategies to mitigate risk. The objectives of this review are to identify patient-centred clinical factors that may be associated with PI development in the adult intensive care environment and to determine the effect size of the relationship between identified factors and PI development in this unique population. The review will follow the PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews. Electronic databases (Cochrane; PubMed/MEDLINE; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); Embase; Scopus; PsycINFO; Proquest; Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations; Australian Digital Theses Program, Grey literature, Google scholar, and Clinical Trial Registries) will be systematically searched. A suite of search terms will identify articles that have examined the patient-centred risk factors for PI development in adult intensive care units. The search strategy will be designed to retrieve studies published since inception to 2016 in English language. Quality of the studies will be assessed by using an assessment framework designed to appraise quality in prognostic studies and methodological considerations in the analysis and publication of observational studies. Screening, study selection process, and data extraction will be undertaken by two independent reviewers. Disagreement will be resolved by discussion and, if required, a third independent reviewer. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies will be assessed and, if possible, meta-analyses will be performed. The evidence synthesis arising from this review will identify person-centred risk factors that are associated with PI development among critically ill patients in intensive care. Findings from this review will demonstrate potential patient risk factors that may influence practice and research priorities to prevent PI development and improve the quality of care provided. PROSPERO CRD42016037690.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 37 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 37 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2017.
All research outputs
#10,871,789
of 19,240,244 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,212
of 1,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,462
of 278,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,240,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,725 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.