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 32 eligible systematic reviews only seven of which described the development and validation of risk prediction tools for PI. Nineteen reviews assessed the prognostic accuracy of the tools and 11 assessed clinical effectiveness. Of the seven reviews reporting model development and validation, six included only machine learning models. Two reviews included external validations of models, although only one review reported any details on external validation methods or results. This was also the only review to report measures of both discrimination and calibration. Five reviews presented measures of discrimination, such as area under the curve (AUC), sensitivities, specificities, F1 scores and G-means. For the four reviews that assessed risk of bias assessment using the PROBAST tool, all models but one were found to be at high or unclear 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).
Competing Interest Statement
The authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: VV is an employee of Paul Hartmann AG; ES and THB received consultancy fees from Paul Hartmann AG. VV, ES and THB were not involved in data curation, screening, data extraction, analysis of results or writing of the original draft. These roles were conducted independently by authors at the University of Birmingham. All other authors received no personal funding or personal compensation from Paul Hartmann AG and have declared that no competing interests exist.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
This work was commissioned and supported by Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany), part of HARTMANN GROUP. The contract with the University of Birmingham was agreed on the legal understanding that the authors had the freedom to publish results regardless of the findings. YT, JD, BH and AC are funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). This paper presents independent research supported by the NIHR Birmingham BRC at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Email addresses, b.hillier{at}bham.ac.uk (BH); k.e.scandrett{at}bham.ac.uk (KS); a.r.coombe{at}bham.ac.uk (AC); boussard{at}stanford.edu (THB); e.w.steyerberg{at}lumc.nl (ES); y.takwoingi{at}bham.ac.uk (YT); vladica.velickovic{at}hartmann.info (VV)
In response to reviewer comments, we have made several amendments to our paper to ensure its suitability for publication. To maintain the relevancy of our findings, we have updated the search of our umbrella review (in June 2024), identifying two additional reviews on model development and validation. In total, we have now included 32 reviews overall, with seven reviews on model development/validation (and 26 reviews on accuracy or clinical effectiveness). We have expanded our discussion on the distinction between external validation of prognostic models (assessing model discrimination and calibration in an external data set) and calculating prognostic accuracy of a risk prediction tool at a given threshold for high/low risk. Furthermore, we have addressed issues on the classification of logistic regression models as machine learning or as statistical, as well as other points suggested by reviewers.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript and supplementary file
