Braden量表与MEWS在重症监护室重度创伤损伤患者压力性损伤中的预测价值分析

目的：探讨Braden量表与改良早期预警评分(MEWS)在重症监护室(ICU)重度创伤损伤患者压力性损伤中的预测价值。方法：将2017年7月1日～2020年7月31日ICU住院接受治疗的105例重度创伤性损伤患者作为研究对象，调查患者一般资料、MEWS、Braden量表评分，并在量表最佳临界值下比较两种量表的灵敏度及特异度、阳性及阴性预测值，利用ROC曲线分析比较两种压力性损伤风险评估方式的预测价值。结果：MEWS预测压力性损伤AUC为0.724,当总分为13.2时，约登指数为0.569,预测值最大；Braden量表评分预测压力性损伤AUC为0.934,当总分为9.3时，约登指数为0.857,预测值最大。Braden量表灵敏度和特异性分别为97.25%、81.57%,高于MEWS评分灵敏度(92.63%)和特异性(65.32%)。结论：MEWS与Braden量表均能很好地预测ICU重度创伤损伤患者压力性损伤的发生风险，且Braden量表预测价值更高。     

两种量表对肿瘤患者压力性损伤预测效果的比较研究

目的探讨应用两种压力性损伤危险评估量表对肿瘤患者压力性损伤发生的预测效果。方法对入院符合纳入标准的261名患者建立资料登记表,并在入院2 h内对其进行首次评估。由2名经过培训的护士独立应用两种量表对不同危险的患者进行压力性损伤危险评估,每天观察受试者皮肤情况,有无压力性损伤发生及其分期,直到患者压力性损伤观察期满3周或出院、死亡。结果OH量表的最佳诊断界值为1. 25,灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为84%、62. 7%、19. 3%、97. 4%; Braden评估量表的最佳诊断界值为15. 5,灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为72%、80. 5%、28. 1%、96. 4%; OH量表和Braden量表的Youden指数分别是0. 467和0. 525; OH评估量表在ROC曲线下的面积为0. 766,低于Braden评估量表0. 819。结论 OH量表在肿瘤住院患者压力性损伤高危风险预测中并不优于Braden量表,但OH量表与Braden量表的Youden指数均较高且相差不大,提示两者均可以用于恶性肿瘤晚期患者的压力性损伤危险预测,从而有效指引护理人员进行压力性损伤预防措施的选择。     

两种压力性损伤评估量表在造血干细胞移植患者中的信效度比较

目的比较Norton量表和Waterlow量表用于造血干细胞移植患者发生压力性损伤的信效度及预测效果。方法选取2019年1-12月共101例我院造血干细胞移植中心行造血干细胞移植患者,应用2种评估量表进行压力性损伤风险评估,记录患者皮肤情况及评估量表得分情况,比较这两种量表的信效度,选取最佳诊断界值及其对应的灵敏度、特异度和AUC。结果本研究中共发生压力性损伤3例。Norton量表的重测信度为0.60～0.88;Waterlow量表的重测信度为0.82～0.98。Norton的Cronbach′sαAlpha为0.646和0.561;Waterlow的Cronbach′sαAlpha为0.410和0.414。Norton量表和Waterlow量表分别去掉"失禁情况"和"年龄"后得分最高;因子分析结果证明,两个量表具有较好的结构效度。Norton量表最佳诊断界值为14分,灵敏度0.714～0.857,特异度0.993～1,AUC为0.975和0.875; Waterlow量表最佳诊断界值为13分,灵敏度0.714～0.857,特异度0.962～0.970,AUC为0.967和0.869,两个量表间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 Norton量表和Waterlow量在应用于HSCT患者压力性损伤评估时表均具有较好的效度,而量表信度、预测效果方面仍有待提高,Waterlow量表相对优于Norton量表,适合HSCT的压力性损伤RAS仍需要进一步研究。     

自制神经外科压疮危险因素评估量表与Braden量表信度与效度的比较研究

目的 更准确地评估神经外科患者发生压疮的危险性,降低压疮发生率.方法 采用两个评估量表(即自制神经外科压疮危险因素评估量表和Braden量表)评估500例神经外科患者的压疮危险因素,并进行信度和效度的比较.结果 自制神经外科压疮危险因素评估量表的Cronbach's α为0.941,Braden量表的Cronbach's α为0.743.因子分析结果显示,两个量表的结构效度与原设想的基本一致.预测效度显示,当自制神经外科压疮危险因素评估量表的诊断界值取16分时,灵敏度和特异度分别为89%和78%;当Braden量表取18分时,灵敏度和特异度分别为78%和58%.结论 两种量表均具有较好的内部一致性信度、结构效度和预测效度,但自制神经外科压疮危险因素评估量表优于Braden量表,是适合神经外科患者人群的压疮危险评估工具.     

中文版Braden QD量表在预测NICU患儿压力性损伤中的应用研究

目的探讨中文版Braden QD量表对新生儿重症监护室(NICU)患儿压力性损伤的预测效果。方法于2019年10-12月,采用方便抽样法选取复旦大学附属儿科医院的160例NICU患儿进行调查,以评价中文版Braden QD量表在预测NICU患儿压力性损伤时的灵敏度、特异度、预测值、受试者工作特性曲线及曲线下面积。结果共有13例患儿发生压力性损伤,发生率为8.1%,1期压力性损伤9例(69.2%),2期压力性损伤4例(30.8%)。中文版Braden QD量表在临界值为13分时,其灵敏度和特异度最佳,对应的灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为69.23%、98.64%、81.80%%和97.30%,ROC曲线下面积为0.815(P0.01)。结论中文版Braden QD量表对NICU患儿压力性损伤具有较好的预测效果,可以用于这一类患儿的压力性损伤风险评估。     

3种压疮危险评估量表在神经外科ICU病人中的应用研究

[目的]研究Braden量表、Norton量表和Waterlow压疮危险评估量表在神经外科监护病房病人应用中的信效度情况。[方法]选择南通大学附属医院神经外科ICU入科前未发生压疮的病人121例,由两名研究者运用3种量表对病人发生压疮的风险进行评估,连续评估病人发生压疮的危险,采用Cronbach’sα系数评价量表的内部一致性信度、采用组内相关系数评价量表的评定者间的信度,采用灵敏度、特异度、ROC曲线下面积(AUC)评价量表的预测效度。[结果]Braden量表、Norton量表和Waterlow量表Cronbach’sα系数分别为0.459,0.397,0.311,ICC分别为0.79,0.89,0.78。Braden量表的AUC为0.365,高低危人群的分界诊断界值在10.5分时,灵敏度为36.4%,特异度为47.5%。Norton量表的AUC为0.475,高低危人群的分界诊断界值在10.5分时,灵敏度为59.1%,特异度为38.4%。Waterlow量表的AUC为0.468,高低危人群的分界诊断界值在20.5分时,灵敏度为54.5%,特异度为47.5%。[结论]Braden量表、Norton量表和Waterlow量表评定者间信度较好,内部一致性信度较差,与其他两个量表相比,Waterlow量表的预测效度较佳,提示进一步研究可对Waterlow量表的条目进行修订,研究更为准确且适合神经外科ICU病人的压疮预测工具。     

手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表对手术患者压力性损伤预测效果的研究

目的 比较并评价手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表、Braden性压力性损伤风险评估量表、Munro围术期成人压力性损伤风险评估量表对外科择期手术患者手术获得性压力损伤的预测效果,为临床选择使用适宜量表提供依据。方法 选取2所三级甲等医院2019年12月—2020年6月外科择期手术患者237例,应用3种量表于术前、术中、术后对患者进行压力性损伤风险评估和皮肤检查。比较3种量表的预测效果和操作便利性。结果 手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表、Braden压力性损伤风险评估量表、Munro围术期成人压力性损伤风险评估量表,术前ROC曲线下面积AUC分别为0.695、0.619、0.684;术中ROC曲线下面积AUC分别为0.848、0.633、0.882;术后ROC曲线下面积AUC分别为0.861、0.757、0.870;3种量表的评估用时比较,手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表评估用时最短。结论 手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表对手术获得性压力性损伤患者预测能力较好,方便使用,值得临床推广应用。     

Braden-Q量表对ICU患儿压力性损伤发生风险的预测效果研究

目的探讨Braden-Q压疮风险评估量表对ICU患儿压力性损伤(MDRPI)发生风险的预测效果。方法便利抽取我国东部地区5所三甲医院儿童重症医学科的302例患儿进行调查,采用灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、约登指数和受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)及曲线下面积(AUC)来评价Braden-Q量表对MDRPI及移动受限相关压力性损伤(IRPI)的预测效果并计算最佳临界值。结果 ICU患儿压力性损伤患病率为16.2%,其中40.8%为MDRPI,IRPI占59.1%。Braden-Q量表对于MDRPI的最佳临界值为18分,此时相应的灵敏度为0.818,特异度为0.550,阳性预测值为0.128,阴性预测值为0.955,约登指数为0.368,AUC为0.686;而对于IRPI,其最佳临界值为17分,其相应的灵敏度为0.897,特异度为0.621,阳性预测值为0.303,阴性预测值为0.958,约登指数为0.518,AUC为0.822。结论 Braden-Q量表对IRPI发生风险的预测能力要优于对MDRPI的预测能力,Braden-Q量表因为缺乏对医疗设备的评估其在评估皮肤压力性损伤风险时存在一定局限性,针对国内ICU患儿压力性损伤风险评估工具的制定还需进一步完善。     

养老机构老年人压力性损伤风险因素树模型的构建

目的分析影响上海市养老机构老年人压力性损伤风险的相关因素并形成树模型。方法采用一般情况调查表、Braden量表及压力性损伤记录表,于2017年3月—11月对上海市7所养老机构的989名住养老年人进行压力性损伤风险评估及现患率调查,通过非参数检验、Logistic回归分析筛选压力性损伤的高危因素,结合决策树理论形成老年人压力性损伤高危因素树模型。结果上海市养老机构老年人的压力性损伤现患率为1.11%,高危人群比例为21.74%(Braden≤18分)。住养老年人压力性损伤风险的影响因素主要包括大小便形式、活动能力、近1年跌倒史、入住前来自三级以下医院、骨折保守治疗、贫血、神经系统疾病、消瘦等,依据上述因素建立的树模型识别准确度为94.64%。结论压力性损伤的发生是多因素共同作用的结果,基于高危因素构建的树模型可与Braden量表结合使用,为Braden量表在我国养老机构的推行提供辅助评估及判断评估准确性的工具。     

Braden量表在足部压疮风险预测中的诊断价值分析

目的 检验Braden量表在足部压疮风险预测中的价值.方法 采用Braden量表分别对52例足部压疮和124例尾骶部压疮进行压疮风险评估,并随机选择120例无压疮的危重患者作为对照,将Braden量表评分输入SPSS软件,预测足部压疮和尾骶部压疮的灵敏度、特异度,比较两者ROC曲线下面积.结果 Braden量表预测尾骶...     

Predictive risk scales for development of pressure ulcers in pediatric patients admitted to general ward and intensive care unit

BACKGROUNDMore than ten special scales are available to predict the risk of pressure ulcers in children. However, the performances of those scales have not yet been compared in China. AIMTo compare the Waterlow, Braden Q, and Glamorgan scales, and identify more suitable pressure ulcer evaluation scale for the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).METHODSTrained nurses used the Waterlow, Braden Q, and Glamorgan scales to assess pediatric patients at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital (China) within 24 h of admission from May 2017 to December 2020 in two stages. Skin examination was carried out to identify pressure ulcers every 3 d for 3 wk. RESULTSThe incidence of pressure ulcers was 3/28 (10.7%) in the PICU and 5/314 (1.6%) in the general pediatric ward. For children in the general ward, the Waterlow, Braden Q, and Glamorgan scales had comparable area under the operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.870, 0.924, and 0.923, respectively, and optimal cut-off values of 14, 14, and 29 points. For PICU, the Waterlow, Braden Q, and Glamorgan scales had slightly lower AUC of 0.833, 0.733, and 0.800, respectively, and optimal cut-off values of 13, 16, and 27 points. Braden Q demonstrated a satisfactory specificity, and during the second stage of the study for PICU patients, the AUC of the Braden Q scale was 0.810, with an optimal cut-off value of 18.35 points.CONCLUSIONThe Waterlow, Braden Q, and Glamorgan scales have comparable performance, while the Braden Q scale demonstrates a better specificity and can be successfully used by pediatric nurses to identify patients at high risk of pressure ulcers in PICU.     

A clinical trial of the Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk

The purpose of this article was to describe the protocol by which predictive instruments can be tested for validity and to evaluate the usefulness of an instrument for predicting pressure sore risk in an AICU. The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk was described. Methods for measuring predictive validity and for calculating sensitivity, specificity, and per cent predictive value of positive and negative tests were discussed. Sixty consecutively admitted AICU patients who were pressure sore free were rated for pressure sore risk within 24 to 72 hours after admission. The skin condition of each patient was systematically assessed every 2 days. Twenty-four subjects developed pressure sores during the study period. The critical cut-off point at which the patient could be judged to be at risk for pressure sore formation was a Braden Scale score equal to or less than 16. The sensitivity and specificity of the scale at this score were 83 to 64 per cent, respectively. The per cent predictive value of a positive and negative test were 61 and 85 per cent, respectively. The Braden Scale compared favorably with the Norton Scale in respect to sensitivity. The specificity, or the tendency of a scale to overpredict, was greater for the Norton than for the Braden Scale. The Norton Scale overpredicted by 64 per cent, whereas the Braden Scale overpredicted by 36 per cent. This difference may be important clinically if all patients who were judged to be at risk received additional nursing care or protective devices. A greater number of patients may receive unnecessary and expensive treatments using the Norton Scale.     

二维超声联合声触诊组织成像定量技术诊断唾液腺干燥综合征

目的 观察二维超声联合声触诊组织成像定量（VTIQ）技术诊断唾液腺干燥综合征（SS）的价值。方法 收集43例SS患者（SS组）和60例非SS患者（对照组）,观察并对比其唾液腺病灶二维超声评分及剪切波速度（SWV）,绘制受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线,评估二维超声评分、VTIQ及二者联合诊断唾液腺SS的效能。结果 SS组唾液腺二维超声评分及唾液腺SWV均明显高于对照组（P均<0.01）。以2.12、2.38 m/s为唾液腺（腮腺、下颌下腺）SWV最佳截断值,其诊断唾液腺SS的敏感度、特异度、约登指数和曲线下面积（AUC）分别为83.70%、88.30%、0.72和0.90;以二维超声评分2分为最佳截断值,其诊断唾液腺SS的敏感度、特异度、约登指数和AUC分别为76.70%、90.00%、0.67和0.91;以二维超声评分为1分且唾液腺SWV=2.12、2.38 m/s为最佳截断值,联合诊断唾液腺SS的敏感度、特异度、约登指数和AUC分别为95.30%、60.00%、0.55和0.78。结论 二维超声联合VTIQ技术有助于诊断唾液腺SS。     

Predictive validity of the Braden Scale among Black and White subjects

BACKGROUND: The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk (Braden Scale) has been tested for predictive validity, but the cut-off scores for Blacks has not been compared to White populations. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this brief report is to determine if the Braden Scale predicts pressure ulcer risk similarly for Blacks and Whites. METHOD: A multisite study of the predictive validity of the Braden Scale was conducted in nursing homes, tertiary care, and Veteran's Administration Medical Centers in three cities (Omaha, Chicago, and Raleigh) selected to maximize ethnic diversity. A total of 843 subjects, 666 (79%) White, 159 (12%) Black were studied. Two nurses independently rated each randomly selected subject on admission and every other day until discharge, using the Braden Scale or the Skin Assessment Tool. RESULTS: Whites had a higher incidence of pressure ulcers (15%) than did Blacks (5%), but there was no statistically significant difference in the mean Braden Scale score between groups ( 19.4, 2.8, White versus 19.8, 2.75, Black). A score of 18 best predicts risk for both groups (sensitivity 70%, specificity 77%, with 75% correct predictions for Whites and sensitivity 75%, specificity 76%, with percent correct 76% for Blacks). There was no difference in the area under the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves (0.75, 0.03, White and 0.82, 0.07, Black subjects, =.005). CONCLUSIONS: A score of 18 can be used for identifying Black and White individuals at risk for pressure ulcers.     

3种压疮危险评估量表在老年患者中应用的信效度研究

目的 比较和评价Norton、Braden和Waterlow 3种压疮危险评估量表在老年患者中应用的信效度.方法 选取某三级甲等医院老年患者271例,运用3种量表连续评估患者的压疮危险,以Cronbach's α系数、内容效度指数、因子分析、ROC曲线等方法评价和比较各量表的信效度.结果Norton、Braden、Watedow量表的内部一致性信度分别为0.71、0.79、0.32;内容效度指数分别为0.85、0.91、0.87;因子分析得到的方差累计贡献率分别为71.73%、70.34%、65.76%;灵敏度和特异度分别为(0.75、0.62)、(0.74、0.59)、(0.86、0.59).结论 Waterlow量表的内部一致性信度低,但预测能力最好;Braden量表的信效度均高,但预测能力偏低.     

神经系统疾病患者膜式血浆置换发生滤器破膜的影响因素分析

目的 探讨神经系统疾病患者膜式血浆置换时发生滤器破膜的影响因素,并得出滤器破膜时跨膜压的临界值。 方法 选取2018年1月—2020年5月某三级甲等医院神经内科ICU行膜式血浆置换的42例患者,纳入196例次血浆置换相关资料,经单因素和多因素Logistic回归分析发生滤器破膜的影响因素,并以跨膜压作为预测指标,选择2020年6月—2020年10月,35例次的血浆置换相关资料进行临床验证,分析跨膜压的最佳临界值。 结果 196例次膜式血浆置换过程中,19例次（9.69%）发生滤器破膜,经Logistic回归分析显示,跨膜压（OR=1.192）是膜式血浆置换过程中滤器破膜的独立危险因素（P<0.05）。跨膜压预测滤器破膜的受试者工作特征曲线下面积为0.977,95%CI为0.952~1.000（P<0.01）,最大约登指数为0.839,跨膜压的最佳临界值为50 mmHg（1 mmHg=0.133 kPa）,灵敏度为89.5%,特异度为94.4%。验证结果发现,以跨膜压<50 mmHg为临界值,其灵敏度为100%,特异度为91.42%,准确度为91.42%。 结论 跨膜压对膜式血浆置换过程中发生滤器破膜的预测效果好,跨膜压维持在50 mmHg以下,能预防发生滤器破膜。     

老年人自我养老能力测评量表最佳界值的预测分析

目的探讨老年人自我养老能力测评量表的最佳界值,预测老年人自我养老能力可能受损人群,为开展促进老年人自我养老能力提高的相关护理干预提供理论依据.方法便利抽样选取福建省60岁及以上的老年人470名,运用老年人自我养老能力测评量表对其进行评估,并根据调查结果绘制受试者工作特征曲线(receiver operating characteristic curve,ROC曲线),以此确定量表的最佳界值.结果老年人自我养老能力测评量表的最佳界值约为178分,ROC曲线下面积为0.897(P<0.01,95%=0.870~0.924),最大约登指数为0.687,且此时敏感度为73.4%,特异度为95.3%.结论老年人自我养老能力测评量表的最佳界值约为178分,其预测准确性良好且具有较好的灵敏度和特异性,有助于为筛检自我养老能力可能受损的高危人群提供参考工具.     

Determining Pressure Injury Risk on Admission to Inpatient Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation: A Comparison of the FIM,Spinal Cord Injury Pressure Ulcer Scale,and Braden Scale

ObjectiveAssess the utility of the admission Spinal Cord Injury Pressure Ulcer Scale (SCIPUS), Braden Scale, and the FIM for identifying individuals at risk for developing pressure injury during inpatient spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation.DesignRetrospective cohort.SettingTwo tertiary rehabilitation centers.ParticipantsIndividuals (N=754) participating in inpatient SCI rehabilitation.InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasuresLogistic regression analysis was performed to determine the utility of the SCIPUS, Braden Scale, and FIM for identifying individuals at risk for developing pressure injury (PI) during inpatient SCI rehabilitation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, false negative rate, odds ratio, likelihood ratio, and area under the curve (AUC) are reported.ResultsThe SCIPUS total score and its individual items did not demonstrate acceptable accuracy (AUC≥0.7) whereas the Braden Scale (0.73) and the FIM score (0.74) did. Once items were dichotomized into high and low risk categories, 1 Braden item (friction and shear), 5 FIM items (bathing, toileting, bed/chair transfer, tub/shower transfer, toilet transfer), the FIM transfers subscale, FIM Motor subscale, and the FIM instrument as a whole, maintained AUCs ≥0.7 and negative predictive values ≥0.95. The FIM bed/chair transfer score demonstrated the highest likelihood ratio (2.62) and overall was the most promising measure for determining PI risk.ConclusionStudy findings suggest that a simple measure of mobility, admission FIM bed/chair transfer score of 1 (total assist), can identify at-risk individuals with greater accuracy than both an SCI specific instrument (SCIPUS) and a PI specific instrument (Braden). The FIM bed/chair transfer score can be readily determined at rehabilitation admission with minimal administrative and clinical burden.