2015Wound Repair and RegenerationRequires access

Predictive and concurrent validity of the B raden scale in long‐term care: A meta‐analysis

Machelle Wilchesky, Ovidiu Lungu

Open publisher page 36 citations

Abstract

Pressure ulcer prevention is an important long-term care (LTC) quality indicator. While the Braden Scale is a recommended risk assessment tool, there is a paucity of information specifically pertaining to its validity within the LTC setting. We, therefore, undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Braden Scale predictive and concurrent validity within this context. We searched the Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO and PubMed databases from 1985-2014 for studies containing the requisite information to analyze tool validity. Our initial search yielded 3,773 articles. Eleven datasets emanating from nine published studies describing 40,361 residents met all meta-analysis inclusion criteria and were analyzed using random effects models. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive values were 86%, 38%, 28%, and 93%, respectively. Specificity was poorer in concurrent samples as compared with predictive samples (38% vs. 72%), while PPV was low in both sample types (25 and 37%). Though random effects model results showed that the Scale had good overall predictive ability [RR, 4.33; 95% CI, 3.28-5.72], none of the concurrent samples were found to have "optimal" sensitivity and specificity. In conclusion, the appropriateness of the Braden Scale in LTC is questionable given its low specificity and PPV, in particular in concurrent validity studies. Future studies should further explore the extent to which the apparent low validity of the Scale in LTC is due to the choice of cutoff point and/or preventive strategies implemented by LTC staff as a matter of course.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Pressure ulcer prevention is an important long-term care (LTC) quality indicator. While the Braden Scale is a recommended risk assessment tool, there is a paucity of information specifically pertaining to its validity within the LTC setting. We, therefore, undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Braden Scale predictive and concurrent validity within this context. We searched the Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO and PubMed databases from 1985-2014 for studies containing the requisite information to analyze tool validity. Our initial search yielded 3,773 articles. Eleven datasets emanating from nine published studies describing 40,361 residents met all meta-analysis inclusion criteria and were analyzed using random effects models. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive values were 86%, 38%, 28%, and 93%, respectively. Specificity was poorer in concurrent samples as compared with predictive samples (38% vs. 72%), while PPV was low in both sample types (25 and 37%). Though random effects model results showed that the Scale had good overall predictive ability [RR, 4.33; 95% CI, 3.28-5.72], none of the concurrent samples were found to have "optimal" sensitivity and specificity. In conclusion, the appropriateness of the Braden Scale in LTC is questionable given its low specificity and PPV, in particular in concurrent validity studies. Future studies should further explore the extent to which the apparent low validity of the Scale in LTC is due to the choice of cutoff point and/or preventive strategies implemented by LTC staff as a matter of course.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 36 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Pressure ulcer prevention is an important long-term care (LTC) quality indicator. While the Braden Scale is a recommended risk assessment tool, there is a paucity of information specifically pertaining to its validity within the LTC setting. We, therefore, undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Braden Scale predictive and concurrent validity within this context. We searched the Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO and PubMed databases from 1985-2014 for studies containing the requisite information to analyze tool validity. Our initial search yielded 3,773 articles. Eleven datasets emanating from nine published studies describing 40,361 residents met all meta-analysis inclusion criteria and were analyzed using random effects models. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive values were 86%, 38%, 28%, and 93%, respectively. Specificity was poorer in concurrent samples as compared with predictive samples (38% vs. 72%), while PPV was low in both sample types (25 and 37%). Though random effects model results showed that the Scale had good overall predictive ability [RR, 4.33; 95% CI, 3.28-5.72], none of the concurrent samples were found to have "optimal" sensitivity and specificity. In conclusion, the appropriateness of the Braden Scale in LTC is questionable given its low specificity and PPV, in particular in concurrent validity studies. Future studies should further explore the extent to which the apparent low validity of the Scale in LTC is due to the choice of cutoff point and/or preventive strategies implemented by LTC staff as a matter of course.

Key concepts: Predictive validity, Concurrent validity, Meta-analysis, Context (archaeology), Medicine, Scale (ratio), MEDLINE, Predictive value

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Predictive and concurrent validity of the B raden scale in long‐term care: A meta‐analysis — Research Paper | ScholarLens