Instrumentos para la evaluación del riesgo de lesiones por presión en adultos en estado crítico: <i>scoping review</i>

Picoito, Ricardo Jorge de Barros Romeira; Lapuente, Sara Maria May Pereira da Cruz; Ramos, Alexandra Catarina Parreira; Rabiais, Isabel Cristina Mascarenhas; Deodato, Sérgio Joaquim; Nunes, Elisabete Maria Garcia Teles

doi:10.1590/1518-8345.6659.3983

Ricardo Jorge de Barros Romeira Picoito Autor de correspondencia: Ricardo Jorge de Barros Romeira Picoito E-mail: bsk_ricardo@hotmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7719-5227

Concepción y dibujo de la pesquisa

Obtención de datos

Análisis e interpretación de los datos

Análisis estadístico

Obtención de financiación

Redacción del manuscrito

Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Escola de Enfermagem do Instituto de Ciências de Saúde, Lisboa, Portugal.

Hospital de São Francisco Xavier, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Ocidental, Lisboa, Portugal.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7719-5227

Sara Maria May Pereira da Cruz Lapuente

Obtención de datos

Análisis e interpretación de los datos

Análisis estadístico

Redacción del manuscrito

Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Escola de Enfermagem do Instituto de Ciências de Saúde, Lisboa, Portugal.

Hospital de São Francisco Xavier, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Ocidental, Lisboa, Portugal.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2225-3944

Alexandra Catarina Parreira Ramos

Obtención de datos

Análisis e interpretación de los datos

Análisis estadístico

Redacción del manuscrito

Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Escola de Enfermagem do Instituto de Ciências de Saúde, Lisboa, Portugal.

Hospital de São Francisco Xavier, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Ocidental, Lisboa, Portugal.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5487-7877

Isabel Cristina Mascarenhas Rabiais

Análisis e interpretación de los datos

Análisis estadístico

Redacción del manuscrito

Revisión crítica del manuscrito en cuanto al contenido intelectual importante

Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Escola de Enfermagem do Instituto de Ciências de Saúde, Lisboa, Portugal.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8342-1171

Sérgio Joaquim Deodato

Concepción y dibujo de la pesquisa

Análisis e interpretación de los datos

Redacción del manuscrito

Revisión crítica del manuscrito en cuanto al contenido intelectual importante

Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Escola de Enfermagem do Instituto de Ciências de Saúde, Lisboa, Portugal.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8076-8276

Elisabete Maria Garcia Teles Nunes

Concepción y dibujo de la pesquisa

Análisis estadístico

Obtención de financiación

Revisión crítica del manuscrito en cuanto al contenido intelectual importante

Escola Superior de Enfermagem de Lisboa, Centro de Investigação, Inovação e Desenvolvimento em Enfermagem de Lisboa (CIDNUR), Lisboa, Portugal.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7598-0670

Autor de correspondencia:
Ricardo Jorge de Barros Romeira Picoito E-mail: bsk_ricardo@hotmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7719-5227

Conflicto de intereses:

los autores han declarado que no existe ningún conflicto de intereses.

Editora Asociada:

Maria Lúcia Zanetti

Bases de Datos	Ecuación de investigación (abril 2023)
MEDLINE	“Scales” OR “instruments” OR “Clinical Assessment Tools” AND (MH “Risk Assessment”) OR (MH “Probability”) AND (MH “Pressure Ulcer”) OR (MH “Wounds and Injuries”) AND (MH “Critical Illness”) OR “Critically Ill Patients” AND (MH “Critical Care”) OR (MH “Intensive Care Units”) AND (MH “Sensitivity and Specificity”) OR (MH “Predictive Value of Tests”) OR “Instruments Validation”
CINAHL	(MH “Scales”) OR “instruments” OR (MH “Clinical Assessment Tools”) AND (MH “Risk Assessment”) OR (MH “Probability”) AND (MH “Pressure Ulcer”) OR (MH “Wounds and Injuries”) AND (MH “Critical Illness”) OR (MH “Critically Ill Patients”) AND (MH “Critical Care”) OR (MH “Intensive Care Units”) AND (MH “Sensitivity and Specificity”) OR (MH “Predictive Value of Tests”) OR (MH “Instrument Validation”)
Nursing & Allied Health Collection: Comprehensive	“Scales” OR DE “TEST validity” OR “Clinical Assessment Tools” AND DE “RISK assessment” OR “Probability” AND DE “PRESSURE ulcers” OR DE “WOUNDS & injuries” AND DE “CATASTROPHIC illness” OR DE “CRITICALLY ill” AND DE “CRITICAL care medicine” OR DE “INTENSIVE care units” AND DE “SENSITIVITY & specificity (Statistics)” OR DE “PREDICTIVE tests” OR DE “TEST validity”
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Methodology Register, MedicLatina, Cochrane Clinical Answers	“Scales” OR “instruments” OR “Clinical Assessment Tools” AND “Risk Assessment” OR MH “Probability” AND “Pressure Ulcer” OR “Wounds and Injuries” OR “Decubitus Ulcer” OR “Bed Sore” AND “Critical Illness” OR “Critically Ill Patients” AND “Critical Care” OR “Intensive Care Units” AND “Sensitivity and Specificity” OR “Predictive Value of Tests” OR “Instrument Validation” OR “Predictive Validity”

País/Año de publicación	Título	Periódico de publicación	Tipo de estudio
Australia 2022	Assessment of the accuracy of the CALCULATE scale for pressure injury in critically ill patients ⁽ ²⁶29. Souza GKC, Kaiser DE, Morais PP, Boniatti MM. Assessment of the accuracy of the CALCULATE scale for pressure injury in critically ill patients. Aust Crit Care. 2023 Mar;36(2):195-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2021.12.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2021.12.0... ⁾	Australian Critical Care	Cohorte prospetivo
Tailandia 2020	Comparison of four pressure ulcer risk assessment tools in critically ill patients ⁽ ²⁷30. Theeranut A, Ninbanphot S, Limpawattana P. Comparison of four pressure ulcer risk assessment tools in critically ill patients. Nurs Crit Care. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511... ⁾	Nurse Critical Care	Descriptivo y prospectivo
Suecia 2020	Development and validation of an ICU-specific pressure injury risk assessment scale* ⁽ ²⁸31. Wahlin I, Ek A, Lindgren M, Geijer S, Arestedt K. Development and validation of an ICU-specific pressure injury risk assessment scale. Scand J Caring Sci. 2020: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12891 https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12891... ⁾	Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences	Prospectivo
Reino Unido 2020	Meta-analysis: Predictive validity of Braden for pressure ulcers in critical care ⁽ ²⁹32. Wei M, Wu L, Chen Y, Fu Q, Chen W, Yang D. Meta-analysis: Predictive validity of Braden for pressure ulcers in critical care. Nurs Crit Care. 2020:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12500 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12500... ⁾	Nurse Critical Care	Revisión de literatura con Meta-análisis
Canadá 2019	Prediction Model for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcer Development: Retrospective Cohort Study ⁽ ³⁰33. Hyun S, Moffatt-Bruce S, Cooper C, Hixon B, Kaewprag P. Prediction Model for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcer Development: Retrospective Cohort Study. JMIR Med Inform. 2019 Jul 18;7(3). https://doi.org/10.2196/13785 https://doi.org/10.2196/13785... ⁾	JMIR Medical Informatics	Cohorte prospetivo
Brasil 2018	Avaliação da acurácia das escalas CALCULATE e Braden na predição do risco de lesões por pressão em unidade de terapia intensiva ⁽ ³¹34. Saranholi T. Avaliação da acurácia das escalas CALCULATE e Braden na predição do risco de LPP em unidade de terapia intensiva [Thesis]. Botucatu: Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”; 2018 [cited 2023 Jan 13]. 42 p. Available from: https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/handle/11449/153319/saranholi_tl_me_bot.pdf?sequence=4 https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/h... ⁾	Tesis de maestría	Cohorte prospectivo y analítico
EE.UU.^† 2017	Usefulness of the Braden Scale in Intensive Care Units - A Study Based on Electronic Health Record Data ⁽ ³²35. Han Y, Choi J, Jin Y, Jin T, Lee S-M. Usefulness of the Braden Scale in Intensive Care Units - A Study Based on Electronic Health Record Data. J Nurs Care Qual. 2017: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000305 https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.000000000000... ⁾	Journal of Nursing Care Quality	Retrospectivo
Australia 2017	Predictive ability of the EVARUCI scale and COMHON index for pressure injury risk in critically ill patients: A diagnostic accuracy study ⁽ ³³36. Leal-Felipe M, Arroyo-López M, Robayna-Delgado M, Gómez-Espejo A, Perera-Díaz P, Chinea-Rodríguez C, et al. Predictive ability of the EVARUCI scale and COMHON index for pressure injury risk in critically ill patients: A diagnostic accuracy study. Aust Crit Care. 2017:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2017.11.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2017.11.0... ⁾	Australian Critical Care	Cohorte retrospectivo
Reino Unido 2017	Predictive validity of the Braden scale for assessing risk of developing pressure ulcers and dependence-related lesions ⁽ ³⁴37. Roca-Biosca A, Rubio-Rico L, Fernández M, Grau N, Garijo G, Fernández F. Predictive validity of the Braden scale for assessing risk of developing pressure ulcers and dependence-related lesions. J Wound Care. 2017 Sep 2;26(9):528-36. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.9.528 https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.9.... ⁾	Journal of Wound Care	Longitudinal y prospectivo
Holanda 2017	Validity of the current risk assessment scale for pressure ulcers in intensive care (EVARUCI) and the Norton-MI scale in critically ill patients ⁽ ³⁵38. Lospitao-Gómez S, Sebastián-Viana T, González-Ruíz J, Álvarez-Rodríguez J. Validity of the current risk assessment scale for pressure ulcers in intensive care (EVARUCI) and the Norton-MI scale in critically ill patients. Appl Nurs Res. 2017;38:76-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2017.09.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2017.09.0... ⁾	Applied Nursing Research	Descriptivo, prospectivo
EE.UU.^† 2017	Predicting the Risk for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Critical Care Patients ⁽ ³⁶14. Deng X, Yu T, Hu A. Predicting the Risk for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Critical Care Patients. Crit Care Nurse. 2017 Aug;37(4):1-11. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017548 https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017548... ⁾	Critical Care Nurse	Observacional retrospectivo
España 2017	Predictive validity and reliability of the Braden scale for risk assessment of pressure ulcers in an intensive care unit ⁽ ³⁷39. Lima-Serrano M, González-Méndez M, Martín-Castano C, Alonso-Araujo I, Lima-Rodríguez J. Predictive validity and reliability of the Braden scale for risk assessment of pressure ulcers in an intensive care unit. Med Intensiva. 2017:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medin.2016.12.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medin.2016.12.... ⁾	Medicina Intensiva	Analítico, observacional, longitudinal y prospectivo
Reino Unido 2015	Part 2: pressure ulcer assessment: implementation and revision of CALCULATE ⁽ ³⁸40. Richardson A, Straughan C. Part 2: pressure ulcer assessment: implementation and revision of CALCULATE. Nurs Crit Care. 2015 Nov;20(6):315-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12172 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12172... ⁾	Nurse Critical Care	Prospectivo
Reino Unido 2015	Part 1: Pressure ulcer assessment – the development of Critical Care Pressure Ulcer Assessment Tool made Easy (CALCULATE) ⁽ ³⁹41. Richardson A, Barrow I. Part 1: Pressure ulcer assessment - the development of Critical Care Pressure Ulcer Assessment Tool made Easy (CALCULATE). Nurs Crit Care. 2015 Nov;20(6):308-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12173 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12173... ⁾	Nurse Critical Care	Revisión de literatura
Brasil 2015	Evaluation of the pressure ulcers risk scales with critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study ⁽ ⁴⁰42. Borghardt A, Prado T, Araújo T, Rogensk N, Bringuente M. Evaluation of the pressure ulcers risk scales with critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study. Rev. Latino-Am Enfermagem. 2015;23(1):28-35. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.0144.2521 https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.0144.2... ⁾	Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem	Cohorte prospectivo
EE.UU.^† 2015	Predictive validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the risk assessment pressure sore scale in intensive care patients: results of a prospective study ⁽ ⁴¹43. Günes Ü, Efteli E. Predictive validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the risk assessment pressure sore scale in intensive care patients: results of a prospective study. Ostomy Wound Manage [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2023 Jan 13]:61(4):58-62. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25853378/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25853378... ⁾	Ostomy Wound Management	Prospectivo
España 2015	Validation of EMINA and EVARUCI scales for assessing the risk of developing pressure ulcers in critical patients ⁽ ⁴²44. Roca-Biosca A, Garcia-Fernandez F, Chacon-Garcés S, Rubio-Rico L, Olona-Cabases M, Anguera-Saperas L, et al. Validation of EMINA and EVARUCI scales for assessing the risk of developing pressure ulcers in critical patients. Enfermería Intensiva. 2015;26(1):15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfi.2014.10.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfi.2014.10.0... ⁾	Enfermería Intensiva	Observacional, correlacional y prospectivo
República Checa 2014	Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: Review ⁽ ⁴³45. Šáteková L, Žiaková K. Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: review. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2023 Jan 13];5(2):85-92. Available from: https://cejnm.osu.cz/pdfs/cjn/2014/02/07.pdf https://cejnm.osu.cz/pdfs/cjn/2014/02/07... ⁾	Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery	Revisión de literatura
Corea del Sur 2013	Reusability of EMR ^‡ Data for Applying Cubbin and Jackson Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale in Critical Care Patients ⁽ ⁴⁴46. Kim E, Choi M, Lee J, Kim Y. Reusability of EMR Data for Applying Cubbin and Jackson Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale in Critical Care Patients. Healthc Inform Res. 2013;19(4):261-70. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2013.19.4.261 https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2013.19.4.26... ⁾	Healthcare Informatics Research	Retrospectivo
Portugal 2013	Validation of two pressure ulcer risk assessment scales among chinese ICU patients* ⁽ ⁴⁵47. Liu M, Chen W, Liao Q, Gu Q, Hsu M, Poon A. Validation of two pressure ulcer risk assessment scales among chinese ICU patients. Rev Enferm Refer. 2013;3(9): 145-50. https://doi.org/10.12707/RIII12146 https://doi.org/10.12707/RIII12146... ⁾	Revista de Enfermagem Referência	Longitudinal y prospectivo
Brasil 2011	Accuracy of two pressure ulcer risk scales for patients within critical condition ⁽ ⁴⁶48. Araújo T, Araújo MFM, Cavalcante C, Barbosa GM Junior, Caetano JA. Accuracy of two pressure ulcer risk scales for patients with in critical condition. Rev Enferm UERJ [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2023 Jan 13]:19(3):381-5. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marcio-Flavio-Araujo/publication/286702290_Accuracy_of_two_pressure_ulcer_risk_scales_for_patients_with_in_critical_condition/links/57ac79b808ae0932c97484a2/Accuracy-of-two-pressure-ulcer-risk-scales-for-patients-with-in-critical-condition.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mar... ⁾	Revista Enfermagem	Longitudinal y prospectivo
Australia 2009	Comparison of the predictive validity among pressure ulcer risk assessment scales for surgical ICU patients* ⁽ ⁴⁷49. Kim E, Lee S, Lee E, Eom M. Comparison of the predictive validity among pressure ulcer risk assessment scales for surgical ICU patients. Aust J Adv Nurs [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2023 Jan 13];26(4):87-94. Available from: https://www.ajan.com.au/archive/Vol26/26-4_Eom.pdf https://www.ajan.com.au/archive/Vol26/26... ⁾	Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing	Prospectivo no experimental

Instrumentos mapeados	Indicadores de desempeño de los instrumentos
Escala de Braden	S* 66,5%; E^† 62,2%; VPP^‡ 12,5%; VPN^§ 98,5%; AUC^\|\| 0,69⁽³⁰33. Hyun S, Moffatt-Bruce S, Cooper C, Hixon B, Kaewprag P. Prediction Model for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcer Development: Retrospective Cohort Study. JMIR Med Inform. 2019 Jul 18;7(3). https://doi.org/10.2196/13785 https://doi.org/10.2196/13785... ⁾. AUC^\|\| 0,61⁽³¹34. Saranholi T. Avaliação da acurácia das escalas CALCULATE e Braden na predição do risco de LPP em unidade de terapia intensiva [Thesis]. Botucatu: Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”; 2018 [cited 2023 Jan 13]. 42 p. Available from: https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/handle/11449/153319/saranholi_tl_me_bot.pdf?sequence=4 https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/h... ⁾. S* 81%; E^† 56%, VPP^‡ 65%; VPN^§ 74%; AUC^\|\| 0,70⁽³²35. Han Y, Choi J, Jin Y, Jin T, Lee S-M. Usefulness of the Braden Scale in Intensive Care Units - A Study Based on Electronic Health Record Data. J Nurs Care Qual. 2017: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000305 https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.000000000000... ⁾. S* 90%; E^† 26%; VPP^‡ 31%; VPN^§ 78%; AUC^\|\| 0,63⁽³⁴37. Roca-Biosca A, Rubio-Rico L, Fernández M, Grau N, Garijo G, Fernández F. Predictive validity of the Braden scale for assessing risk of developing pressure ulcers and dependence-related lesions. J Wound Care. 2017 Sep 2;26(9):528-36. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.9.528 https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.9.... ⁾. S* 74,4%; E^† 78,6; VPP^‡ 28,6; VPN^§ 96,4; AUC^\|\| 0,79⁽³⁶14. Deng X, Yu T, Hu A. Predicting the Risk for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Critical Care Patients. Crit Care Nurse. 2017 Aug;37(4):1-11. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017548 https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017548... ⁾. S* 66,7%; E^† 55,8%; VPP^‡ 11,7%; VPN^§ 95%; AUC^\|\| 0,66⁽³⁷39. Lima-Serrano M, González-Méndez M, Martín-Castano C, Alonso-Araujo I, Lima-Rodríguez J. Predictive validity and reliability of the Braden scale for risk assessment of pressure ulcers in an intensive care unit. Med Intensiva. 2017:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medin.2016.12.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medin.2016.12.... ⁾. S* 41%; E^† 21%; AUC^\|\| 0,29⁽⁴⁰42. Borghardt A, Prado T, Araújo T, Rogensk N, Bringuente M. Evaluation of the pressure ulcers risk scales with critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study. Rev. Latino-Am Enfermagem. 2015;23(1):28-35. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.0144.2521 https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.0144.2... ⁾. S* 78%, 95%, 71,4%; E^† 29%, 45%, 83,1%; VPP^‡ 70%, 52%, 31,3%; VPN^§ 38%, 94%, 96,4%⁽⁴²44. Roca-Biosca A, Garcia-Fernandez F, Chacon-Garcés S, Rubio-Rico L, Olona-Cabases M, Anguera-Saperas L, et al. Validation of EMINA and EVARUCI scales for assessing the risk of developing pressure ulcers in critical patients. Enfermería Intensiva. 2015;26(1):15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfi.2014.10.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfi.2014.10.0... ⁾. S* 93,2%; E^† 16,6%; VPP^‡ 15,6%; VPN^§ 93,7%; AUC^\|\| 0,71⁽⁴⁴46. Kim E, Choi M, Lee J, Kim Y. Reusability of EMR Data for Applying Cubbin and Jackson Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale in Critical Care Patients. Healthc Inform Res. 2013;19(4):261-70. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2013.19.4.261 https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2013.19.4.26... ⁾. S* 91,7%; E^† 63,0%; VPP^‡ 19.0%; VPN^§ 98,8%; AUC^\|\| 0,15⁽⁴⁵47. Liu M, Chen W, Liao Q, Gu Q, Hsu M, Poon A. Validation of two pressure ulcer risk assessment scales among chinese ICU patients. Rev Enferm Refer. 2013;3(9): 145-50. https://doi.org/10.12707/RIII12146 https://doi.org/10.12707/RIII12146... ⁾. S* 31,2%; E^† 88,2%; VPP^‡ 71,4%; VPN^§ 66,4%⁽⁴⁶48. Araújo T, Araújo MFM, Cavalcante C, Barbosa GM Junior, Caetano JA. Accuracy of two pressure ulcer risk scales for patients with in critical condition. Rev Enferm UERJ [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2023 Jan 13]:19(3):381-5. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marcio-Flavio-Araujo/publication/286702290_Accuracy_of_two_pressure_ulcer_risk_scales_for_patients_with_in_critical_condition/links/57ac79b808ae0932c97484a2/Accuracy-of-two-pressure-ulcer-risk-scales-for-patients-with-in-critical-condition.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mar... ⁾. S* 92,5%; E^† 69,8%, VPP^‡ 40.6%, VPN^§ 97,6%; AUC^\|\| 0,88⁽⁴⁷49. Kim E, Lee S, Lee E, Eom M. Comparison of the predictive validity among pressure ulcer risk assessment scales for surgical ICU patients. Aust J Adv Nurs [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2023 Jan 13];26(4):87-94. Available from: https://www.ajan.com.au/archive/Vol26/26-4_Eom.pdf https://www.ajan.com.au/archive/Vol26/26... ⁾. AUC^\|\| 0,71; 0,70⁽²⁷30. Theeranut A, Ninbanphot S, Limpawattana P. Comparison of four pressure ulcer risk assessment tools in critically ill patients. Nurs Crit Care. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511... ⁾. AUC^\|\| 0.67⁽²⁷30. Theeranut A, Ninbanphot S, Limpawattana P. Comparison of four pressure ulcer risk assessment tools in critically ill patients. Nurs Crit Care. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511... ⁾. S* 89%; E^† 28%; AUC^\|\| 0,78⁽²⁹32. Wei M, Wu L, Chen Y, Fu Q, Chen W, Yang D. Meta-analysis: Predictive validity of Braden for pressure ulcers in critical care. Nurs Crit Care. 2020:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12500 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12500... ⁾.
Escala de Braden (ALB)	AUC^\|\| 0.74⁽²⁷30. Theeranut A, Ninbanphot S, Limpawattana P. Comparison of four pressure ulcer risk assessment tools in critically ill patients. Nurs Crit Care. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511... ⁾.
Escala Emina	S* 94,3%; E^† 33,3%; VPP^‡ 35,7; VPN^§ 93,7; AUC^\|\| 0,63⁽⁴²44. Roca-Biosca A, Garcia-Fernandez F, Chacon-Garcés S, Rubio-Rico L, Olona-Cabases M, Anguera-Saperas L, et al. Validation of EMINA and EVARUCI scales for assessing the risk of developing pressure ulcers in critical patients. Enfermería Intensiva. 2015;26(1):15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfi.2014.10.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfi.2014.10.0... ⁾.
Escala Norton MI	S* 94,05%; E^† 40,47%; VPP^‡ 26,22%; VPN^§ 96,80%; AUC^\|\| 0,77%⁽³⁵38. Lospitao-Gómez S, Sebastián-Viana T, González-Ruíz J, Álvarez-Rodríguez J. Validity of the current risk assessment scale for pressure ulcers in intensive care (EVARUCI) and the Norton-MI scale in critically ill patients. Appl Nurs Res. 2017;38:76-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2017.09.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2017.09.0... ⁾.
RAPS	S* 74,2%; E^† 31,8%; VPP^‡ 38,7%; VPN^§ 91,3%; AUC^\|\| 0,5⁽⁴¹43. Günes Ü, Efteli E. Predictive validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the risk assessment pressure sore scale in intensive care patients: results of a prospective study. Ostomy Wound Manage [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2023 Jan 13]:61(4):58-62. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25853378/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25853378... ⁾.
Escala de Waterlow	S* 71%; E^† 47%; AUC^\|\| 0,57⁽⁴⁰42. Borghardt A, Prado T, Araújo T, Rogensk N, Bringuente M. Evaluation of the pressure ulcers risk scales with critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study. Rev. Latino-Am Enfermagem. 2015;23(1):28-35. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.0144.2521 https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.0144.2... ⁾. S* 100%; E^† 11,7%; VPP^‡ 100%; VPN^§ 100%⁽⁴⁶48. Araújo T, Araújo MFM, Cavalcante C, Barbosa GM Junior, Caetano JA. Accuracy of two pressure ulcer risk scales for patients with in critical condition. Rev Enferm UERJ [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2023 Jan 13]:19(3):381-5. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marcio-Flavio-Araujo/publication/286702290_Accuracy_of_two_pressure_ulcer_risk_scales_for_patients_with_in_critical_condition/links/57ac79b808ae0932c97484a2/Accuracy-of-two-pressure-ulcer-risk-scales-for-patients-with-in-critical-condition.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mar... ⁾.
CALCULATE	AUC^\|\| 0,74⁽³¹34. Saranholi T. Avaliação da acurácia das escalas CALCULATE e Braden na predição do risco de LPP em unidade de terapia intensiva [Thesis]. Botucatu: Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”; 2018 [cited 2023 Jan 13]. 42 p. Available from: https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/handle/11449/153319/saranholi_tl_me_bot.pdf?sequence=4 https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/h... ⁾. AUC^\|\| 0.71⁽²⁷30. Theeranut A, Ninbanphot S, Limpawattana P. Comparison of four pressure ulcer risk assessment tools in critically ill patients. Nurs Crit Care. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511... ⁾. AUC^\|\| 0,91;0,92⁽²⁶29. Souza GKC, Kaiser DE, Morais PP, Boniatti MM. Assessment of the accuracy of the CALCULATE scale for pressure injury in critically ill patients. Aust Crit Care. 2023 Mar;36(2):195-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2021.12.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2021.12.0... ⁾.
Índice de COMHON	S* 82,8%; E^† 51,5%; VPP^‡ 55,2%; VPN^§ 80,6%; AUC^\|\| 0,7⁽³⁴37. Roca-Biosca A, Rubio-Rico L, Fernández M, Grau N, Garijo G, Fernández F. Predictive validity of the Braden scale for assessing risk of developing pressure ulcers and dependence-related lesions. J Wound Care. 2017 Sep 2;26(9):528-36. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.9.528 https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.9.... ⁾. AUC^\|\| 0.61⁽²⁷30. Theeranut A, Ninbanphot S, Limpawattana P. Comparison of four pressure ulcer risk assessment tools in critically ill patients. Nurs Crit Care. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511... ⁾.
Escala de Cubbin & Jackson	S* 72,0%; E^† 68,8%; VPP^‡ 27,7%; VPN^§ 93,7%; AUC^\|\| 0,76⁽⁴⁴46. Kim E, Choi M, Lee J, Kim Y. Reusability of EMR Data for Applying Cubbin and Jackson Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale in Critical Care Patients. Healthc Inform Res. 2013;19(4):261-70. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2013.19.4.261 https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2013.19.4.26... ⁾. S* 33,3%; E^† 95.3%, VPP^‡ 40.0%, VPN^§ 93.8%; AUC^\|\| 0,09⁽⁴⁵47. Liu M, Chen W, Liao Q, Gu Q, Hsu M, Poon A. Validation of two pressure ulcer risk assessment scales among chinese ICU patients. Rev Enferm Refer. 2013;3(9): 145-50. https://doi.org/10.12707/RIII12146 https://doi.org/10.12707/RIII12146... ⁾. S* 95%; E^† 81,5%, VPP^‡ 53,5%, VPN^§ 98,6%; AUC^\|\| 0,90⁽⁴⁷49. Kim E, Lee S, Lee E, Eom M. Comparison of the predictive validity among pressure ulcer risk assessment scales for surgical ICU patients. Aust J Adv Nurs [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2023 Jan 13];26(4):87-94. Available from: https://www.ajan.com.au/archive/Vol26/26-4_Eom.pdf https://www.ajan.com.au/archive/Vol26/26... ⁾.
EVARUCI	S* 80,2%; E^† 69,1%; VPP^‡ 48,3%; VPN^§ 90,7%; AUC^\|\| 0,82⁽³³36. Leal-Felipe M, Arroyo-López M, Robayna-Delgado M, Gómez-Espejo A, Perera-Díaz P, Chinea-Rodríguez C, et al. Predictive ability of the EVARUCI scale and COMHON index for pressure injury risk in critically ill patients: A diagnostic accuracy study. Aust Crit Care. 2017:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2017.11.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2017.11.0... ⁾. S* de 80,4%; E^† 64,4%; VPP^‡ 33,7%; VPN^§ 93,6%; AUC^\|\| 0,75⁽³⁵38. Lospitao-Gómez S, Sebastián-Viana T, González-Ruíz J, Álvarez-Rodríguez J. Validity of the current risk assessment scale for pressure ulcers in intensive care (EVARUCI) and the Norton-MI scale in critically ill patients. Appl Nurs Res. 2017;38:76-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2017.09.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2017.09.0... ⁾. S* 92,4%; E^† 42,9%; VPP^‡ 38,8%; VPN^§ 93,5%; AUC^\|\| 0,67⁽⁴²44. Roca-Biosca A, Garcia-Fernandez F, Chacon-Garcés S, Rubio-Rico L, Olona-Cabases M, Anguera-Saperas L, et al. Validation of EMINA and EVARUCI scales for assessing the risk of developing pressure ulcers in critical patients. Enfermería Intensiva. 2015;26(1):15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfi.2014.10.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfi.2014.10.0... ⁾. S* 100%; E^† 68,6%; VPP^‡ 40,7%; VPN^§ 10%; AUC^\|\| 0,93⁽⁴³45. Šáteková L, Žiaková K. Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: review. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2023 Jan 13];5(2):85-92. Available from: https://cejnm.osu.cz/pdfs/cjn/2014/02/07.pdf https://cejnm.osu.cz/pdfs/cjn/2014/02/07... ⁾.
RAPS ICU	S* 88%; E^† 37%; AUC^\|\| 0,71⁽²⁸31. Wahlin I, Ek A, Lindgren M, Geijer S, Arestedt K. Development and validation of an ICU-specific pressure injury risk assessment scale. Scand J Caring Sci. 2020: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12891 https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12891... ⁾.
Escala Song & Choi	S* 95%; E^† 69,2%, VPP^‡ 40,8%, VPN^§ 98,4%; AUC^\|\| 0,89^§(49).
Escala Suriaidi y Sanada	S* 28,4%; E^† 81%; VPP^‡ 83%; VPN^§ 65%; AUC^\|\| 0,88⁽⁴³45. Šáteková L, Žiaková K. Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: review. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2023 Jan 13];5(2):85-92. Available from: https://cejnm.osu.cz/pdfs/cjn/2014/02/07.pdf https://cejnm.osu.cz/pdfs/cjn/2014/02/07... ⁾.

Instrumentos mapeados	Valoración de los usuarios sobre el uso/limitaciones de los instrumentos
Escala de Braden	“Se requiere desarrollo y modificaciones adicionales a esta herramienta o la creación de una nueva herramienta con mayor poder predictivo”⁽²⁹32. Wei M, Wu L, Chen Y, Fu Q, Chen W, Yang D. Meta-analysis: Predictive validity of Braden for pressure ulcers in critical care. Nurs Crit Care. 2020:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12500 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12500... ⁾. “Es limitada en la predicción de factores de riesgo de úlceras por presión”; “Requiere elementos adicionales para ser aplicable para evaluar el riesgo de úlceras por presión en pacientes de UTI*”; “Encontramos una predictibilidad relativamente baja de la herramienta”; “Debería llevarse a cabo más investigación para mejorar la validez de la herramienta”⁽³²35. Han Y, Choi J, Jin Y, Jin T, Lee S-M. Usefulness of the Braden Scale in Intensive Care Units - A Study Based on Electronic Health Record Data. J Nurs Care Qual. 2017: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000305 https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.000000000000... ⁾. “Se ha sobrestimado el riesgo de desarrollar úlceras por presión”⁽³⁶14. Deng X, Yu T, Hu A. Predicting the Risk for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers in Critical Care Patients. Crit Care Nurse. 2017 Aug;37(4):1-11. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017548 https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017548... ⁾. “El riesgo de desarrollar úlceras por presión está sobrestimado, por lo que es difícil sacar conclusiones sobre la capacidad predictiva de esta escala”⁽³⁷39. Lima-Serrano M, González-Méndez M, Martín-Castano C, Alonso-Araujo I, Lima-Rodríguez J. Predictive validity and reliability of the Braden scale for risk assessment of pressure ulcers in an intensive care unit. Med Intensiva. 2017:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medin.2016.12.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medin.2016.12.... ⁾. “La escala de Braden demostró ser una buena herramienta de clasificación”⁽⁴⁰42. Borghardt A, Prado T, Araújo T, Rogensk N, Bringuente M. Evaluation of the pressure ulcers risk scales with critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study. Rev. Latino-Am Enfermagem. 2015;23(1):28-35. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.0144.2521 https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.0144.2... ⁾.
Escala de Braden (ALB)	“Con base en AUC^†, la escala de Braden (ALB) demostró el mejor desempeño entre las herramientas de evaluación de riesgos examinadas en este estudio, seguida de CALCULATE, la escala de Braden y el índice COMHON”; “Los índices de laboratorio estándar deben usarse como indicadores complementarios del riesgo de úlceras por presión”⁽²⁷30. Theeranut A, Ninbanphot S, Limpawattana P. Comparison of four pressure ulcer risk assessment tools in critically ill patients. Nurs Crit Care. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12511... ⁾.
Escala Emina	“En el punto de corte habitual, no es muy efectivo para detectar el riesgo de lesiones por presión en pacientes críticos”; “Clasifica a la gran mayoría de los pacientes como de alto riesgo”⁽⁴²44. Roca-Biosca A, Garcia-Fernandez F, Chacon-Garcés S, Rubio-Rico L, Olona-Cabases M, Anguera-Saperas L, et al. Validation of EMINA and EVARUCI scales for assessing the risk of developing pressure ulcers in critical patients. Enfermería Intensiva. 2015;26(1):15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfi.2014.10.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfi.2014.10.0... ⁾.
Escala Norton MI	“Es una escala fácil de usar con definiciones y criterios claros que evitan la variabilidad entre los observadores”; “Una de las limitaciones es su sencillez, ya que no incluye factores de riesgo específicos”; “Se necesitan más estudios de validación en el campo de los cuidados intensivos”; “Puede que no sea la escala más adecuada para evaluar el riesgo en una UTI*, ya que no tiene en cuenta factores de riesgo específicos”⁽³⁵38. Lospitao-Gómez S, Sebastián-Viana T, González-Ruíz J, Álvarez-Rodríguez J. Validity of the current risk assessment scale for pressure ulcers in intensive care (EVARUCI) and the Norton-MI scale in critically ill patients. Appl Nurs Res. 2017;38:76-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2017.09.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2017.09.0... ⁾.
RAPS	“En este estudio, la escala RAPS mostró aceptable confiabilidad y baja validez (…) para detectar pacientes de UTI* con riesgo de desarrollar úlceras por presión”⁽⁴¹43. Günes Ü, Efteli E. Predictive validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the risk assessment pressure sore scale in intensive care patients: results of a prospective study. Ostomy Wound Manage [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2023 Jan 13]:61(4):58-62. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25853378/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25853378... ⁾.
Escala de Waterlow	“Waterlow con mejor poder predictivo en comparación con la escala de Braden”⁽⁴⁰42. Borghardt A, Prado T, Araújo T, Rogensk N, Bringuente M. Evaluation of the pressure ulcers risk scales with critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study. Rev. Latino-Am Enfermagem. 2015;23(1):28-35. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.0144.2521 https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.0144.2... ⁾. “La escala de Waterlow reveló mejores puntajes y coeficientes de validez en la evaluación del riesgo de úlceras por presión en comparación con la escala de Braden”⁽⁴⁶48. Araújo T, Araújo MFM, Cavalcante C, Barbosa GM Junior, Caetano JA. Accuracy of two pressure ulcer risk scales for patients with in critical condition. Rev Enferm UERJ [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2023 Jan 13]:19(3):381-5. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marcio-Flavio-Araujo/publication/286702290_Accuracy_of_two_pressure_ulcer_risk_scales_for_patients_with_in_critical_condition/links/57ac79b808ae0932c97484a2/Accuracy-of-two-pressure-ulcer-risk-scales-for-patients-with-in-critical-condition.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mar... ⁾.
CALCULATE	“Mostró una mejor precisión en comparación con la escala de Braden”; “No se realizó la traducción transcultural debido a la objetividad de la escala y su fácil aplicabilidad”⁽³¹34. Saranholi T. Avaliação da acurácia das escalas CALCULATE e Braden na predição do risco de LPP em unidade de terapia intensiva [Thesis]. Botucatu: Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”; 2018 [cited 2023 Jan 13]. 42 p. Available from: https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/handle/11449/153319/saranholi_tl_me_bot.pdf?sequence=4 https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/h... ⁾. “Fue relativamente simple de implementar”; “Se utilizó una escala de calificación de 1 a 5 (1 = difícil y 5 = fácil) para establecer la facilidad de uso de la herramienta en la práctica. Todas los enfermeros calificaron la herramienta con 3, 4 o 5, y la mayoría (65%) calificó la herramienta con la puntuación más alta de 5 (fácil)”; “trabajo menos burocrático”; “Se presenta como una herramienta fácil de usar y adecuada”⁽³⁸40. Richardson A, Straughan C. Part 2: pressure ulcer assessment: implementation and revision of CALCULATE. Nurs Crit Care. 2015 Nov;20(6):315-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12172 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12172... ⁾. “Ofrece una importante contribución al avance y desarrollo de la evaluación del riesgo de lesiones por presión en la UTI*”. “En el futuro, los estudios deben centrarse en el trabajo para validar aún más los factores de riesgo y probar la confiabilidad y la ponderación de cada factor como predictor de riesgo”⁽³⁹41. Richardson A, Barrow I. Part 1: Pressure ulcer assessment - the development of Critical Care Pressure Ulcer Assessment Tool made Easy (CALCULATE). Nurs Crit Care. 2015 Nov;20(6):308-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12173 https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12173... ⁾.
Índice de COMHON	“Es fácil de usar”⁽³³36. Leal-Felipe M, Arroyo-López M, Robayna-Delgado M, Gómez-Espejo A, Perera-Díaz P, Chinea-Rodríguez C, et al. Predictive ability of the EVARUCI scale and COMHON index for pressure injury risk in critically ill patients: A diagnostic accuracy study. Aust Crit Care. 2017:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2017.11.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2017.11.0... ⁾. “El índice COMHON se desempeñó relativamente insatisfactorio en este estudio. Sin embargo, tuvo la mayor especificidad entre las pruebas estudiadas”.⁽²⁶29. Souza GKC, Kaiser DE, Morais PP, Boniatti MM. Assessment of the accuracy of the CALCULATE scale for pressure injury in critically ill patients. Aust Crit Care. 2023 Mar;36(2):195-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2021.12.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2021.12.0... ⁾.
Escala de Cubbin & Jackson	“La escala de Cubbin & Jackson se desempeñó ligeramente mejor que la escala de Braden”⁽⁴⁴46. Kim E, Choi M, Lee J, Kim Y. Reusability of EMR Data for Applying Cubbin and Jackson Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale in Critical Care Patients. Healthc Inform Res. 2013;19(4):261-70. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2013.19.4.261 https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2013.19.4.26... ⁾. “A los participantes del estudio les resultó difícil aplicarlo en su práctica”⁽⁴⁵47. Liu M, Chen W, Liao Q, Gu Q, Hsu M, Poon A. Validation of two pressure ulcer risk assessment scales among chinese ICU patients. Rev Enferm Refer. 2013;3(9): 145-50. https://doi.org/10.12707/RIII12146 https://doi.org/10.12707/RIII12146... ⁾. “Se encontró que la escala de Cubbin & Jackson era más confiable y válida que las escalas de Braden y Song & Choi”⁽⁴⁷49. Kim E, Lee S, Lee E, Eom M. Comparison of the predictive validity among pressure ulcer risk assessment scales for surgical ICU patients. Aust J Adv Nurs [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2023 Jan 13];26(4):87-94. Available from: https://www.ajan.com.au/archive/Vol26/26-4_Eom.pdf https://www.ajan.com.au/archive/Vol26/26... ⁾.
EVARUCI	“Actualmente es la escala con menos ítems, ahorrando tiempo en la valoración”⁽³³36. Leal-Felipe M, Arroyo-López M, Robayna-Delgado M, Gómez-Espejo A, Perera-Díaz P, Chinea-Rodríguez C, et al. Predictive ability of the EVARUCI scale and COMHON index for pressure injury risk in critically ill patients: A diagnostic accuracy study. Aust Crit Care. 2017:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2017.11.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2017.11.0... ⁾. “Es una escala fácil de usar con definiciones y criterios claros que evitan la variabilidad entre observadores. Además, incluye una definición operativa de los términos”⁽³⁵38. Lospitao-Gómez S, Sebastián-Viana T, González-Ruíz J, Álvarez-Rodríguez J. Validity of the current risk assessment scale for pressure ulcers in intensive care (EVARUCI) and the Norton-MI scale in critically ill patients. Appl Nurs Res. 2017;38:76-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2017.09.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2017.09.0... ⁾. “La Escala EVARUCI, desarrollada especialmente para UTI*, mostró buenos valores de indicadores de validez”⁽⁴³45. Šáteková L, Žiaková K. Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: review. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2023 Jan 13];5(2):85-92. Available from: https://cejnm.osu.cz/pdfs/cjn/2014/02/07.pdf https://cejnm.osu.cz/pdfs/cjn/2014/02/07... ⁾.
RAPS ICU	“El equipo de la UTI* la considera una herramienta relevante y fácil de usar en la práctica clínica”; “El instrumento puede predecir el desarrollo de lesiones por presión durante la estancia en la UTI* con buena sensibilidad y especificidad aceptable. Por lo tanto, la escala podría utilizarse para identificar a los pacientes de la UTI* con riesgo de lesiones por presión.”; “Necesita ser utilizada y validada en futuros estudios.”⁽²⁸31. Wahlin I, Ek A, Lindgren M, Geijer S, Arestedt K. Development and validation of an ICU-specific pressure injury risk assessment scale. Scand J Caring Sci. 2020: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12891 https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12891... ⁾.
Escala Song & Choi	“Una de las escalas más conocidas y favorecidas en entornos hospitalarios agudos en Corea”⁽⁴⁷49. Kim E, Lee S, Lee E, Eom M. Comparison of the predictive validity among pressure ulcer risk assessment scales for surgical ICU patients. Aust J Adv Nurs [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2023 Jan 13];26(4):87-94. Available from: https://www.ajan.com.au/archive/Vol26/26-4_Eom.pdf https://www.ajan.com.au/archive/Vol26/26... ⁾.
Escala Suriaidi y Sanada	“La Escala Suriaidi y Sanada, desarrollada especialmente para UTI*, mostró buenos valores de indicadores de validez”⁽⁴³45. Šáteková L, Žiaková K. Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: review. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2023 Jan 13];5(2):85-92. Available from: https://cejnm.osu.cz/pdfs/cjn/2014/02/07.pdf https://cejnm.osu.cz/pdfs/cjn/2014/02/07... ⁾.

[1] Autor de correspondencia:
Ricardo Jorge de Barros Romeira Picoito E-mail: bsk_ricardo@hotmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7719-5227

Brasil

Brasil

Instrumentos para la evaluación del riesgo de lesiones por presión en adultos en estado crítico: scoping review^* * Apoyo financiero de la Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal, UIDB/04279/2020.

Objetivo:

Método:

Resultados:

Conclusión:

Destacados:

Brasil

Brasil

Instrumentos para la evaluación del riesgo de lesiones por presión en adultos en estado crítico: scoping review* * Apoyo financiero de la Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal, UIDB/04279/2020.

Objetivo:

Método:

Resultados:

Conclusión:

Destacados:

Instrumentos para la evaluación del riesgo de lesiones por presión en adultos en estado crítico: scoping review^* * Apoyo financiero de la Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal, UIDB/04279/2020.