文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：儿童压力性损伤风险评估量表使用情况分析

英文题名：Analysis of application of children′s pressure injury risk assessment scales

作者：程露颖[1,2];郑卿勇[1];赵亮[1];李艳明[3];田金徽[4,5]

第一作者：程露颖

机构：[1]兰州大学护理学院兰州大学循证护理中心,甘肃730000;[2]自贡市第一人民医院;[3]甘肃中医药大学护理学院;[4]兰州大学基础医学院兰州大学循证医学中心;[5]甘肃省循证医学与临床转化重点实验室

第一机构：兰州大学护理学院兰州大学循证护理中心,甘肃730000

年份：2023

卷号：37

期号：5

起止页码：782

中文期刊名：护理研究

外文期刊名：Chinese Nursing Research

收录：CSTPCD;;北大核心:【北大核心2020】；

语种：中文

中文关键词：儿童;压力性损伤;评估量表;护理;文献计量学

外文关键词：children;pressure injury;assessment scales;nursing;bibliometrics

摘要：目的:分析国内外儿童压力性损伤评估量表的使用情况。方法:检索PubMed、the Cochrane Library、EMbase、Web of Science、中国知网、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据知识服务平台和维普资讯网,并检索压力性损伤相关网站,检索时限均为建库至2021年11月29日。2名研究员独立对检索文献进行筛选,提取纳入文献中使用的压力性损伤评估量表、儿童年龄、压力性损伤的类型等。采用R4.13绘制儿童压力性损伤评估量表发展与条目衍化图,使用Excel软件进行数据分析。结果:共纳入176篇文献,英文63篇,中文113篇,共涉及29种压力性损伤风险评估量表,其中有18种评估量表进行了信效度、敏感度或特异度检测。国外评估量表有18种,其中有10种属于国内外通用量表,国内改良或自制量表有11种。英文使用较多的3种量表为Braden Q量表(49.21%)、Glamorgan量表(15.87%)和NSRAS量表(9.52%),中文使用较多的3种量表为Braden Q量表(31.86%)、Braden量表(27.43%)和NSRAS量表(15.04%)。但仅有20篇(31.75%)英文和47篇(41.59%)中文文献报告了量表的具体使用情况。结论:国内外对于儿童压力性损伤规范、客观化评估重视程度还有待提高。目前国内使用的压力性损伤评估量表多来自国外,国内改良或自制量表多数未行效度和信度评价,且使用频率不高。
Objective:To survey the application of the children′s pressure injury assessment scales for assessing children′s pressure injury.Methods:We searched PubMed,the Cochrane Library,EMbase,Web of Science,CNKI,CBM,WanFang Data,VIP,and the websites related to pressure injury,the retrieval time was from the establishment of the databases to November 29, 2021. Two researchers independently screened the retrieved literatures,and extracted the pressure injury assessment scale used in the included literature,the age of the children,and the type of pressure injury. R 4. 13 software were used to draw the development and item evolution chart of the Pressure Injury Assessment scales,Excel 2019 were used to analyze data. Results:A total of 176 articles were included,including 63 English literatures and 113 Chinese literatures,involving 29 types of pressure injury risk assessment scales,among which 18 were tested for reliability,validity,sensitivity or specificity.There were 18 foreign assessment scales,of which there were 10 common scales at home and abroad,and 11 were domestic modified or self-made scales. The three most frequently used scales in English were the Braden Q scale(49. 21%),the Glamorgan scale(15. 87%) and the NSRAS scale(9. 52%),and in Chinese were the Braden Q scale(31. 86%),the Braden scale(27. 43%) and the NSRAS scale(15. 04%). However,only 20 in English(31. 75%) and 47 in Chinese(41. 59%) reported the specific use of pressure injury assessment scales.Conclusions:At home and abroad,the emphasis on the standard and objective assessment of children′s pressure injury needs to be improved. At present, most of the pressure injury assessment scales used in China are from foreign countries. The validity and reliability of most of the modified or home-made scales have not been evaluated,and the frequency of use is not high.