Risk Assessment and Prevention of Pressure Ulcers: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of PhysiciansFREE
The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations based on the comparative effectiveness of risk assessment scales and preventive interventions for pressure ulcers.
This guideline is based on published literature on this topic that was identified by using MEDLINE (1946 through February 2014), CINAHL (1998 through February 2014), the Cochrane Library, clinical trials registries, and reference lists. Searches were limited to English-language publications. The outcomes evaluated for this guideline include pressure ulcer incidence and severity, resource use, diagnostic accuracy, measures of risk, and harms. This guideline grades the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations by using ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population is patients at risk for pressure ulcers.
ACP recommends that clinicians should perform a risk assessment to identify patients who are at risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence)
ACP recommends that clinicians should choose advanced static mattresses or advanced static overlays in patients who are at an increased risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)
ACP recommends against using alternating-air mattresses or alternating-air overlays in patients who are at an increased risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)
Pressure ulcers are defined as localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue, usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure alone or in combination with shear (1). They commonly occur in patients with limited mobility, such as those in hospitals or long-term care settings. It is estimated that up to 3 million adults in the United States are affected by pressure ulcers (2). The prevalence in the United States is estimated to range from 0.4% to 38% in acute care hospitals, 2% to 24% in long-term care nursing facilities, and 0% to 17% in home care settings (2–4). Between 1990 and 2001, pressure ulcers were reported as a cause of death in nearly 115 000 persons and were listed as the underlying cause of death in more than 21 000 (5). The estimated cost of treating each case of pressure ulcers ranges from $37 800 to $70 000, and up to $11 billion is spent annually in the United States to treat pressure ulcers (2, 6, 7). A growing industry has developed to market various products for pressure ulcer prevention.
Risk factors for pressure ulcers include older age; black race or Hispanic ethnicity; lower body weight; cognitive impairment; physical impairments; and other comorbid conditions that affect soft tissue integrity and healing, such as urinary or fecal incontinence, diabetes, edema, impaired microcirculation, hypoalbuminemia, and malnutrition (8–11). Various risk assessment instruments have been developed, including the Braden, Cubbin and Jackson, Norton, Ramstadius, and Waterlow scales.
Prevention strategies for pressure ulcers begin with identification of high-risk persons. Many interventions designed to prevent pressure ulcers and reduce friction and shear are available, and categories include various support surfaces (such as mattresses, integrated bed systems, overlays, and cushions), repositioning, nutritional supplementation, skin care (for example, dressing and management of incontinence), and topical creams (Table 1). Studies have suggested that prevention of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers is more effective than standard care (12). Although this guideline focuses on a comparative effectiveness review of individual interventions, we understand that care teams often implement multicomponent interventions or bundled approaches to preventing pressure ulcers and that pressure ulcer care involves physicians, nurses, and other members of the care team.
The purpose of this American College of Physicians (ACP) guideline is to present the available evidence on the comparative effectiveness of various risk assessment instruments and benefits and harms of strategies to prevent pressure ulcers. The target audience for this guideline is all clinicians, including physicians, nurses, dieticians, and physical therapists. The target patient population comprises all adults at risk for pressure ulcers. For recommendations on the treatment of pressure ulcers, please refer to the accompanying ACP guideline (13).
This guideline is based on a systematic evidence review (14), an update of the literature (Supplement), and an evidence report sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (17) that addressed the following key questions:
1. Is the use of risk assessment tools effective in reducing the incidence or severity of pressure ulcers, and how does effectiveness vary according to setting and patient characteristics?
2. How do various risk assessment tools compare with one another in their ability to predict the incidence of pressure ulcers?
3. In patients at increased risk for pressure ulcers, what is the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of preventive interventions in reducing the incidence or severity of pressure ulcers, and how does effectiveness vary according to assessed risk level, setting, or patient characteristics?
4. What are the harms of interventions for preventing pressure ulcers? Do harms differ according to the type of intervention, setting, or patient characteristics?
We searched MEDLINE (1946 through February 2014), CINAHL (1998 through February 2014), the Cochrane Library, clinical trials registries, and reference lists to identify trials published in English. The outcomes evaluated for this guideline include pressure ulcer incidence and severity; resource use (including duration of hospital stay or cost); diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios); measures of risk (hazard ratios, odds ratios, and relative risks); discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve); and harms, such as dermatologic reactions, discomfort, and infection.
We also supplemented the AHRQ evidence review with another systematic evidence review of multicomponent strategies for preventing pressure ulcers that examined the importance of contextual aspects of programs that aim to reduce facility-acquired pressure ulcers (16). This review included implementation studies (from 2000 to September 2012) of multicomponent initiatives to prevent pressure ulcers in adults in U.S. acute and long-term care settings. Studies were limited to those that reported pressure ulcer rates at least 6 months after implementation of the intervention.
Further details about the methods and inclusion and exclusion criteria applied in the evidence review are available in the full AHRQ report (15) and the Supplement. This guideline rates the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations by using ACP's guideline grading system (Table 2). Details of the ACP guideline development process can be found in ACP's methods paper (17).
Comparative Effectiveness of Risk Assessment Tools for Reducing the Incidence or Severity of Pressure Ulcers
Low-quality evidence from 1 good-quality study showed no difference among the Waterlow scale, the Ramstadius tool (an unvalidated combination risk assessment and intervention protocol), and nurses' clinical judgment alone in reducing the risk for pressure ulcers or length of stay in patients (18). A recent Cochrane review supported this conclusion, citing lack of evidence to conclusively show a difference between the risk assessment tools and clinical judgment in reducing pressure ulcer incidence (19). No study evaluated the effectiveness of risk assessment tools across care settings or patient subgroups.
Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of Risk Assessment Tools for Predicting the Incidence of Pressure Ulcers
Moderate-quality evidence showed that the Braden, Cubbin and Jackson, Norton, and Waterlow scales had low sensitivity and specificity to identify patients at risk for pressure ulcers. In addition, moderate-quality evidence showed that diagnostic accuracy did not differ substantially among the scales (15). Low-quality evidence showed no clear differences in diagnostic accuracy of the Braden scale according to patient characteristics or settings, with lower optimal cutoffs for surgical or acute care patients. Moderate-quality evidence showed no clear differences in diagnostic accuracy of the Braden scale according to baseline pressure ulcer risk. Although the Cubbin and Jackson scale was initially developed for patients in intensive care units, low-quality evidence showed that it had a similar diagnostic accuracy to the Braden and Waterlow scales in this setting (20, 21). Tables 3 and 4 provide descriptions of the scales as well as sensitivities and specificities; more details are available in the full evidence report (15).
Evidence Related to Individual Interventions
Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness of Preventive Interventions to Reduce the Incidence or Severity of Pressure Ulcers
Many interventions were studied by only 1 trial each, and pooling of studies was not practical because of methodological limitations and clinical diversity of the studies. Table 5 summarizes the evidence for the various preventive interventions. Static (moderate-quality evidence) (55–59) and alternating-air (low-quality evidence) (74–76) mattresses or overlays reduced pressure ulcer incidence compared with standard hospital mattresses. Evidence was mixed or showed no statistically significant difference for comparisons of other support surfaces (61–69, 71–83). Low-quality evidence showed no difference in risk for pressure ulcers or mixed results for heel supports or boots (84, 85), different wheelchair cushions (86–89), nutritional supplementation (90–95), various dressings (101, 102), intraoperative warming (103), and various repositioning intervals (low- to moderate-quality evidence) (96–100, 108, 109). Low-quality evidence showed that a skin cream containing fatty acid and a skin cleanser other than soap decreased risk for pressure ulcers (60, 110, 111).
Harms of Interventions to Prevent Pressure Ulcers
A total of 16 trials reported harms for interventions to prevent pressure ulcers. Although details on specific harms were sparse, no serious treatment-related harms were reported. In summary, evidence was insufficient to determine how harms of preventive interventions vary according to the type of intervention, care setting, or patient characteristics.
Mattresses, Overlays, and Other Support Systems
Low-quality evidence from 9 studies of support surfaces reported harms. Heat-related discomfort was reported in 3 trials of sheepskin overlays, which also led to withdrawals (56, 57, 60). One trial reported differences in pain and sleep disturbances between different dynamic mattresses (110). A study comparing a multicell pulsating dynamic mattress with a static gel overlay found no differences in risk for adverse events (111). One study reported no increased risk for adverse events with the Heelift Suspension Boot (DM Systems) compared with standard care (84). One study reported an increased risk for withdrawal due to discomfort with the Jay cushion compared with standard wheelchair cushions (88).
Low-quality evidence from 1 study reported that tube feeds were poorly tolerated (54% removed within 1 week and 67% removed within 2 weeks) (93).
Low-quality evidence from 2 studies reported increased nonadherence due to intolerability of repositioning at a 30-degree tilt position compared with standard positioning (108, 109).
Low-quality evidence from 1 study showed that application of the Remois Pad (Alcare) resulted in pruritus in 1 patient out of 37 total (112).
Creams, Lotions, and Cleansers
Low-quality evidence from 3 studies reported harms for lotions or creams. Two studies reported 1 case each of a wet sore or rash, and 1 study showed no differences in rash between various creams studied (106, 113, 114).
Interventions to Facilitate Implementation of Pressure Ulcer Prevention Protocols or Guidelines
Low-quality evidence from 1 study showed no difference in incident stage 2 to 4 ulcers between a multicomponent electronic clinical decision-support system or provision of guidelines (1.8% vs. 2.1%; relative risk, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.23 to 3.10]) (107). Evidence from 1 poor-quality study showed that immediate implementation of musical cues was associated with lower risk for incident ulcers in nursing home residents (6.0% vs. 9.4%; relative risk, 0.64 [CI, 0.45 to 0.90]) (115).
Evidence Related to Multicomponent Interventions
Multicomponent interventions are increasingly becoming the standard of care for prevention of pressure ulcers. Bundling care practices and organizing a team approach to care have been shown to be effective at improving patient outcomes.
Moderate-quality evidence from a review of 26 implementation studies showed that multicomponent interventions can improve skin care and reduce pressure ulcer rates in both acute and long-term care settings (16). The review found that key components of successful interventions include simplification and standardization of pressure ulcer–specific interventions and documentation, involvement of multidisciplinary teams and leadership (including ostomy, continence, and other nurses and personnel), designated skin champions who educate staff about skin care and ulcer prevention, ongoing staff education (including team meetings and motivational campaigns), and sustained audit and feedback (including weekly prevalence reports, formal and informal feedback, and all-facility meetings) (16). Successful interventions also incorporated evidence-based guidelines into their practices.
The systematic review found no harms reported for the multicomponent strategies that were used to prevent pressure ulcers (16).
The systematic review identified 4 studies (116–120) that reported significant cost savings with the multicomponent approach. In 2008, a 2-hospital system (548 beds in Naples, Florida) estimated annual cost savings of approximately $11.5 million as a result of statistically significant reductions in pressure ulcer prevalence (117).
Low-quality evidence showed that risk assessment tools (the Waterlow and Ramstadius scales) were equivalent to clinical judgment alone for reducing pressure ulcer incidence. Evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of the commonly used risk assessment instruments showed that these tools can help in the identification of patients who are at an increased risk for pressure ulcers, although the sensitivities and specificities were low. Diagnostic accuracy did not differ substantially among the various risk assessment instruments, and studies of direct comparisons were limited.
Most of the evidence on preventive interventions came from studies assessing support surfaces. Moderate-quality evidence showed that advanced static mattresses and overlays were associated with a lower risk for pressure ulcers compared with standard mattresses in higher-risk patients. Evidence on other preventive interventions, including nutritional supplementation, lotions, cleansers, and dressings, was limited and inconclusive because most were assessed by few studies.
Little evidence was available on harms of preventive interventions, although no serious harms were reported. Evidence was also insufficient to draw a conclusion about harms based on the type of intervention, care setting, or patient characteristics.
All of the preventive interventions reviewed in this guideline were assessed individually, but they can be bundled to provide optimum care. Evidence shows that multicomponent strategies can improve clinical outcomes. Key components of successful implementation efforts include simplification and standardization of pressure ulcer–specific interventions and documentation, involvement of multidisciplinary teams and leadership, designated skin champions, ongoing staff education, and sustained audit and feedback. The Figure summarizes the recommendations and clinical considerations.
Recommendation 1: ACP recommends that clinicians should perform a risk assessment to identify patients who are at risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence)
Risk assessment is often part of bundled care and multicomponent interventions for preventing pressure ulcers. Risk factors for pressure ulcers include older age; black race or Hispanic ethnicity; lower body weight; cognitive impairment; physical impairments; and other comorbid conditions that affect soft tissue integrity and healing, such as urinary or fecal incontinence, diabetes, edema, impaired microcirculation, hypoalbuminemia, and malnutrition. Clinicians should make individualized decisions based on risk assessment on whether to use a single or multicomponent intervention to prevent pressure ulcers in patients.
The current evidence does not conclusively show a difference between clinical judgment and risk assessment scales in reducing pressure ulcer incidence. However, tools may be especially useful for clinicians without expert gestalt. Moderate-quality evidence showed that the Braden, Cubbin and Jackson, Norton, and Waterlow scales can predict which patients are more likely to develop a pressure ulcer, and all of these instruments have low sensitivity and specificity. In addition, moderate-quality evidence showed that the diagnostic accuracies of the scales do not differ substantially. No study evaluated the effectiveness of risk assessment tools across care settings or patient subgroups.
Recommendation 2: ACP recommends that clinicians should choose advanced static mattresses or advanced static overlays in patients who are at an increased risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)
Moderate-quality evidence showed that the use of advanced static mattresses or overlays was associated with a lower risk for pressure ulcers compared with standard hospital mattresses, and no brand was shown to be superior. Advanced static mattresses and overlays are also less expensive than alternating-air or low–air-loss mattresses and can be used as part of a multicomponent approach to pressure ulcer prevention.
Recommendation 3: ACP recommends against using alternating-air mattresses or alternating-air overlays in patients who are at an increased risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)
The current evidence does not show a clear benefit for pressure ulcer prevention using alternating-air beds and overlays compared with static mattresses and overlays, and alternating-air beds and overlays are associated with significantly higher costs. Lower-cost support surfaces should be the preferred approach to care.
Inconclusive Areas of Evidence
Evidence is insufficient to compare various preventive interventions, such as different types of repositioning and leg elevations, relative to various kinds of usual care. Creams and lotions, dressings, repositioning, and nutritional support, in any combination, are generally regarded as usual care. Of note, the comparison group in many studies was standard care that often included repositioning, skin care, and/or nutrition. Therefore, any lack of evidence showing benefit relative to the comparison group of usual care does not mean that usual care should be abandoned.
Data on the efficacy of many of the interventions came only from single studies, and further research into comparative effectiveness of pressure ulcer prevention strategies is warranted. In addition, more research is needed on the comparative efficacy of pressure ulcer risk assessment tools and their efficacy compared with clinical judgment.
Prevention of pressure ulcers is the first important step, and advanced static mattresses and overlays were associated with a lower risk for pressure ulcers compared with standard mattresses in higher-risk patients. Many hospitals in the United States use alternating-air and low–air-loss mattresses and overlays despite the lack of evidence showing a potential benefit in the reduction of pressure ulcers in high-risk populations. Using these support systems is expensive and adds unnecessary burden on the health care system. Based on the review of the current evidence, lower-cost support services should be the preferred approach to care.
European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Quick Reference Guide. Washington, DC: National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel; 2009. Google Scholar
Lyder CH. Pressure ulcer prevention and management. JAMA. 2003;289:223-6. [PMID: 12517234] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
- 3. Pressure ulcers in America: prevalence, incidence, and implications for the future. An executive summary of the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel monograph. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2001;14:208-15. [PMID: 11902346] MedlineGoogle Scholar
VanGilder C, Amlung S, Harrison P, Meyer S. Results of the 2008–2009 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey and a 3-year, acute care, unit-specific analysis. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2009;55:39-45. [PMID: 19934462] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Redelings MD, Lee NE, Sorvillo F. Pressure ulcers: more lethal than we thought? Adv Skin Wound Care. 2005;18:367-72. [PMID: 16160463] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kuhn BA, Coulter SJ. Balancing the pressure ulcer cost and quality equation. Nurs Econ. 1992;10:353-9. [PMID: 1465158] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Russo CA, Steiner C, Spector W. Hospitalizations Related to Pressure Ulcers Among Adults 18 Years and Older, 2006. HCUP statistical brief no. 64. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. Google Scholar
Fogerty MD, Abumrad NN, Nanney L, Arbogast PG, Poulose B, Barbul A. Risk factors for pressure ulcers in acute care hospitals. Wound Repair Regen. 2008;16:11-8. [PMID: 18211574] doi:10.1111/j.1524-475X.2007.00327.x CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lyder C, Ayello E. Pressure ulcers: a patient safety issue.. In: Hughes R, eds. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. AHRQ publication no. 08-0043. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008:1-33. Google Scholar
Lyder CH, Yu C, Emerling J, Mangat R, Stevenson D, Empleo-Frazier O, et al. The Braden Scale for pressure ulcer risk: evaluating the predictive validity in Black and Latino/Hispanic elders. Appl Nurs Res. 1999;12:60-8. [PMID: 10319520] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten M, Margolis DJ, Localio AR, Kagan SH, Lowe RA, Kinosian B, et al. Pressure ulcers among elderly patients early in the hospital stay. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006;61:749-54. [PMID: 16870639] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Padula WV, Mishra MK, Makic MB, Sullivan PW. Improving the quality of pressure ulcer care with prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care. 2011;49:385-92. [PMID: 21368685] doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31820292b3 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Qaseem A, Humphrey LL, Forciea MA, Starkey M, Denberg TD; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Treatment of pressure ulcers: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:370-9. doi:10.7326/M14-1568 LinkGoogle Scholar
Chou R, Dana T, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Starmer AJ, Reitel K, et al. Pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention: a systematic comparative effectiveness review. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:28-38. [PMID: 23817702]. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-1-201307020-00006 LinkGoogle Scholar
- 15. Chou R, Dana T, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Starmer A, Reitel K, et al. Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment and Prevention: Comparative Effectiveness. Comparative effectiveness review no. 87. (Prepared by Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 290-2007-10057-I.) AHRQ publication no. 12(13)-EHC148-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. Accessed at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/309/1490/pressure-ulcer-prevention-executive-130508.pdf on 5 January 2015. Google Scholar
Sullivan N, Schoelles KM. Preventing in-facility pressure ulcers as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:410-6. [PMID: 23460098]. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303051-00008 LinkGoogle Scholar
Qaseem A, Snow V, Owens DK, Shekelle P; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. The development of clinical practice guidelines and guidance statements of the American College of Physicians: summary of methods. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:194-9. [PMID: 20679562]. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-153-3-201008030-00010 LinkGoogle Scholar
Webster J, Coleman K, Mudge A, Marquart L, Gardner G, Stankiewicz M, et al. Pressure ulcers: effectiveness of risk-assessment tools. A randomised controlled trial (the ULCER trial). BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:297-306. [PMID: 21262791] doi:10.1136/bmjqs.2010.043109 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Moore ZE, Cowman S. Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2:CD006471. [PMID: 24497383] doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006471.pub3 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Boyle M, Green M. Pressure sores in intensive care: defining their incidence and associated factors and assessing the utility of two pressure sore risk assessment tools. Aust Crit Care. 2001;14:24-30. [PMID: 11899757] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Jun Seongsook RN, Jeong Ihnsook RN, Lee Younghee RN. Validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales; Cubbin and Jackson, Braden, and Douglas scale. Int J Nurs Stud. 2004;41:199-204. [PMID: 14725784] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bergstrom N, Braden B, Kemp M, Champagne M, Ruby E. Predicting pressure ulcer risk: a multisite study of the predictive validity of the Braden Scale. Nurs Res. 1998;47:261-9. [PMID: 9766454] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bergstrom N, Braden BJ, Laguzza A, Holman V. The Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Nurs Res. 1987;36:205-10. [PMID: 3299278] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bergstrom N, Demuth PJ, Braden BJ. A clinical trial of the Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Nurs Clin North Am. 1987;22:417-28. [PMID: 3554150] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Braden BJ, Bergstrom N. Predictive validity of the Braden Scale for pressure sore risk in a nursing home population. Res Nurs Health. 1994;17:459-70. [PMID: 7972924] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Capobianco ML, McDonald DD. Factors affecting the predictive validity of the Braden Scale. Adv Wound Care. 1996;9:32-6. [PMID: 9069754] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Defloor T, Grypdonck MF. Pressure ulcers: validation of two risk assessment scales. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14:373-82. [PMID: 15707448] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Goodridge DM, Sloan JA, LeDoyen YM, McKenzie JA, Knight WE, Gayari M. Risk-assessment scores, prevention strategies, and the incidence of pressure ulcers among the elderly in four Canadian health-care facilities. Can J Nurs Res. 1998;30:23-44. [PMID: 9807287] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Halfens RJ, Van Achterberg T, Bal RM. Validity and reliability of the Braden Scale and the influence of other risk factors: a multi-centre prospective study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2000;37:313-9. [PMID: 10760538] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Langemo DK, Olson B, Hunter S, Hanson D, Burd C, Cathcart-Silberberg T. Incidence and prediction of pressure ulcers in five patient care settings. Decubitus. 1991;4:25-6. [PMID: 1872975] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Lewicki LJ, Mion LC, Secic M. Sensitivity and specificity of the Braden Scale in the cardiac surgical population. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2000;27:36-41. [PMID: 10649141] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Lyder CH, Yu C, Emerling J, Mangat R, Stevenson D, Empleo-Frazier O, et al. The Braden Scale for pressure ulcer risk: evaluating the predictive validity in Black and Latino/Hispanic elders. Appl Nurs Res. 1999;12:60-8. [PMID: 10319520] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Olson K, Tkachuk L, Hanson J. Preventing pressure sores in oncology patients. Clin Nurs Res. 1998;7:207-24. [PMID: 9633340] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Pang SM, Wong TK. Predicting pressure sore risk with the Norton, Braden, and Waterlow scales in a Hong Kong rehabilitation hospital. Nurs Res. 1998;47:147-53. [PMID: 9610648] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Ramundo JM. Reliability and validity of the Braden Scale in the home care setting. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 1995;22:128-34. [PMID: 7599722] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Salvadalena GD, Snyder ML, Brogdon KE. Clinical trial of the Braden Scale on an acute care medical unit. J ET Nurs. 1992;19:160-5. [PMID: 1420528] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Schoonhoven L, Haalboom JR, Bousema MT, Algra A, Grobbee DE, Grypdonck MH, et al; prePURSE study group. The prevention and pressure ulcer risk score evaluation study. Prospective cohort study of routine use of risk assessment scales for prediction of pressure ulcers. BMJ. 2002;325:797. [PMID: 12376437] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Baldwin KM, Ziegler SM. Pressure ulcer risk following critical traumatic injury. Adv Wound Care. 1998;11:168-73. [PMID: 10326336] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Barnes D, Payton RG. Clinical application of the Braden Scale in the acute-care setting. Dermatol Nurs. 1993;5:386-8. [PMID: 8274348] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Chan EY, Tan SL, Lee CK, Lee JY. Prevalence, incidence and predictors of pressure ulcers in a tertiary hospital in Singapore. J Wound Care. 2005;14:383-4. [PMID: 16178294] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Feuchtinger J, Halfens R, Dassen T. Pressure ulcer risk assessment immediately after cardiac surgery—does it make a difference? A comparison of three pressure ulcer risk assessment instruments within a cardiac surgery population. Nurs Crit Care. 2007;12:42-9. [PMID: 17883663] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Hagisawa S, Barbenel J. The limits of pressure sore prevention. J R Soc Med. 1999;92:576-8. [PMID: 10703495] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Jalali R, Rezaie M. Predicting pressure ulcer risk: comparing the predictive validity of 4 scales. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2005;18:92-7. [PMID: 15788914] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
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. 2009;26:87-94. Google Scholar
Kwong E, Pang S, Wong T, Ho J, Shao-ling X, Li-jun T. Predicting pressure ulcer risk with the modified Braden, Braden, and Norton scales in acute care hospitals in Mainland China. Appl Nurs Res. 2005;18:122-8. [PMID: 15991112] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lyder CH, Yu C, Stevenson D, Mangat R, Empleo-Frazier O, Emerling J, et al. Validating the Braden Scale for the prediction of pressure ulcer risk in blacks and Latino/Hispanic elders: a pilot study. Ostomy Wound Manage. 1998;44:42S-49S. [PMID: 9625997] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Serpa LF, Santos VL, Campanili TC, Queiroz M. Predictive validity of the Braden scale for pressure ulcer risk in critical care patients. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2011;19:50-7. [PMID: 21412629] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Tourtual DM, Riesenberg LA, Korutz CJ, Semo AH, Asef A, Talati K, et al. Predictors of hospital acquired heel pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage. 1997;43:24-8. [PMID: 9369740] MedlineGoogle Scholar
VandenBosch T, Montoye C, Satwicz M, Durkee-Leonard K, Boylan-Lewis B. Predictive validity of the Braden Scale and nurse perception in identifying pressure ulcer risk. Appl Nurs Res. 1996;9:80-6. [PMID: 8871435] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bergstrom N, Braden BJ. Predictive validity of the Braden Scale among Black and White subjects. Nurs Res. 2002;51:398-403. [PMID: 12464760] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lincoln R, Roberts R, Maddox A, Levine S, Patterson C. Use of the Norton Pressure Sore Risk Assessment Scoring System with elderly patients in acute care. J Enterostomal Ther. 1986;13:132-8. [PMID: 3636346] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Stotts NA. Predicting pressure ulcer development in surgical patients. Heart Lung. 1988;17:641-7. [PMID: 3192408] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Chan WH, Chow KW, French P, Lai YS, Tse LK. Which pressure sore risk calculator? A study of the effectiveness of the Norton scale in Hong Kong. Int J Nurs Stud. 1997;34:165-9. [PMID: 9134472] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Perneger TV, Raë AC, Gaspoz JM, Borst F, Vitek O, Héliot C. Screening for pressure ulcer risk in an acute care hospital: development of a brief bedside scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:498-504. [PMID: 12007553] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Gray D, Campbell M. A randomized clinical trial of two types of foam mattresses. J Tissue Viability. 1994;4:128-32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jolley DJ, Wright R, McGowan S, Hickey MB, Campbell DA, Sinclair RD, et al. Preventing pressure ulcers with the Australian Medical Sheepskin: an open-label randomised controlled trial. Med J Aust. 2004;180:324-7. [PMID: 15059051] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Mistiaen P, Achterberg W, Ament A, Halfens R, Huizinga J, Montgomery K, et al. The effectiveness of the Australian Medical Sheepskin for the prevention of pressure ulcers in somatic nursing home patients: a prospective multicenter randomized-controlled trial (ISRCTN17553857). Wound Repair Regen. 2010;18:572-9. [PMID: 20946141] doi:10.1111/j.1524-475X.2010.00629.x CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Russell LJ, Reynolds TM, Park C, Rithalia S, Gonsalkorale M, Birch J, et al; PPUS-1 Study Group. Randomized clinical trial comparing 2 support surfaces: results of the Prevention of Pressure Ulcers Study. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2003;16:317-27. [PMID: 14652518] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
van Leen M, Hovius S, Neyens J, Halfens R, Schols J. Pressure relief, cold foam or static air? A single center, prospective, controlled randomized clinical trial in a Dutch nursing home. J Tissue Viability. 2011;20:30-4. [PMID: 20510611] doi:10.1016/j.jtv.2010.04.001 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
McGowan S, Montgomery K, Jolley D, Wright R. The role of sheepskins in preventing pressure ulcers in elderly orthopaedic patients. Proceedings of the First World Wound Healing Congress, Melbourne, Australia, 10–13 September 2000. Primary Intention. 2000;8:127-34. Google Scholar
Collier ME. Pressure-reducing mattresses. J Wound Care. 1996;5:207-11. [PMID: 8850903] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Cooper PJ, Gray DG, Mollison J. A randomised controlled trial of two pressure-reducing surfaces. J Wound Care. 1998;7:374-6. [PMID: 9832744] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Gray DG, Smith M. Comparison of a new foam mattress with the standard hospital mattress. J Wound Care. 2000;9:29-31. [PMID: 10827665] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Hampton S. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the Thermo contour mattress. Br J Nurs. 1999;8:990-6. [PMID: 10711028] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kemp MG, Kopanke D, Tordecilla L, Fogg L, Shott S, Matthiesen V, et al. The role of support surfaces and patient attributes in preventing pressure ulcers in elderly patients. Res Nurs Health. 1993;16:89-96. [PMID: 8502770] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lazzara DJ, Buschmann MT. Prevention of pressure ulcers in elderly nursing home residents: are special support surfaces the answer? Decubitus. 1991;4:42-4. [PMID: 1760125] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Lim R, Sirett R, Conine TA, Daechsel D. Clinical trial of foam cushions in the prevention of decubitis ulcers in elderly patients. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1988;25:19-26. [PMID: 3361457] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Sideranko S, Quinn A, Burns K, Froman RD. Effects of position and mattress overlay on sacral and heel pressures in a clinical population. Res Nurs Health. 1992;15:245-51. [PMID: 1496149] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Stapleton M. Preventing pressure sores—an evaluation of three products. Geriatr Nurs (Lond). 1986;6:23-5. [PMID: 3635484] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Vyhlidal SK, Moxness D, Bosak KS, Van Meter FG, Bergstrom N. Mattress replacement or foam overlay? A prospective study on the incidence of pressure ulcers. Appl Nurs Res. 1997;10:111-20. [PMID: 9274063] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Inman KJ, Sibbald WJ, Rutledge FS, Clark BJ. Clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of an air suspension bed in the prevention of pressure ulcers. JAMA. 1993;269:1139-43. [PMID: 8433469] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Jesurum J, Joseph K, Davis JM, Suki R. Balloons, beds, and breakdown. Effects of low-air loss therapy on the development of pressure ulcers in cardiovascular surgical patients with intra-aortic balloon pump support. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 1996;8:423-40. [PMID: 9095813] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Theaker C, Kuper M, Soni N. Pressure ulcer prevention in intensive care—a randomised control trial of two pressure-relieving devices. Anaesthesia. 2005;60:395-9. [PMID: 15766343] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Andersen KE, Jensen O, Kvorning SA, Bach E. Decubitus prophylaxis: a prospective trial on the efficiency of alternating-pressure air-mattresses and water-mattresses. Acta Derm Venereol. 1983;63:227-30. [PMID: 6192636] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Cavicchioli A, Carella G. Clinical effectiveness of a low-tech versus high-tech pressure-redistributing mattress. J Wound Care. 2007;16:285-9. [PMID: 17708377] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Sanada H, Sugama J, Matsui Y, Konya C, Kitagawa A, Okuwa M, et al. Randomised controlled trial to evaluate a new double-layer air-cell overlay for elderly patients requiring head elevation. J Tissue Viability. 2003;13:112-4. [PMID: 12889398] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Conine TA, Daechsel D, Lau MS. The role of alternating air and Silicore overlays in preventing decubitus ulcers. Int J Rehabil Res. 1990;13:57-65. [PMID: 2394540] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Daechsel D, Conine TA. Special mattresses: effectiveness in preventing decubitus ulcers in chronic neurologic patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1985;66:246-8. [PMID: 3985778] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Vanderwee K, Grypdonck MH, Defloor T. Effectiveness of an alternating pressure air mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Age Ageing. 2005;34:261-7. [PMID: 15764622] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Demarré L, Beeckman D, Vanderwee K, Defloor T, Grypdonck M, Verhaeghe S. Multi-stage versus single-stage inflation and deflation cycle for alternating low pressure air mattresses to prevent pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients: a randomised-controlled clinical trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49:416-26. [PMID: 22056165] doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.10.007 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Nixon J, Cranny G, Iglesias C, Nelson EA, Hawkins K, Phillips A, et al. Randomised, controlled trial of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers: PRESSURE (Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces) trial. BMJ. 2006;332:1413. [PMID: 16740530] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Nixon J, Nelson EA, Cranny G, Iglesias CP, Hawkins K, Cullum NA, et al; PRESSURE Trial Group. Pressure relieving support surfaces: a randomised evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:1-163. [PMID: 16750060] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Taylor L. Evaluating the Pegasus Trinova: a data hierarchy approach. Br J Nurs. 1999;8:771-4. [PMID: 10670292] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Donnelly J, Winder J, Kernohan WG, Stevenson M. An RCT to determine the effect of a heel elevation device in pressure ulcer prevention post-hip fracture. J Wound Care. 2011;20:309-12. [PMID: 21841719] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Tymec AC, Pieper B, Vollman K. A comparison of two pressure-relieving devices on the prevention of heel pressure ulcers. Adv Wound Care. 1997;10:39-44. [PMID: 9204803] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Brienza D, Kelsey S, Karg P, Allegretti A, Olson M, Schmeler M, et al. A randomized clinical trial on preventing pressure ulcers with wheelchair seat cushions. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58:2308-14. [PMID: 21070197] doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03168.x CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Conine TA, Daechsel D, Hershler C. Pressure sore prophylaxis in elderly patients using slab foam or customized contoured foam wheelchair cushions. OTJR (Thorofare N J). 1993;13:101-16. Google Scholar
Conine TA, Hershler C, Daechsel D, Peel C, Pearson A. Pressure ulcer prophylaxis in elderly patients using polyurethane foam or Jay wheelchair cushions. Int J Rehabil Res. 1994;17:123-37. [PMID: 7960335] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Geyer MJ, Brienza DM, Karg P, Trefler E, Kelsey S. A randomized control trial to evaluate pressure-reducing seat cushions for elderly wheelchair users. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2001;14:120-9. [PMID: 11905977] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bourdel-Marchasson I, Barateau M, Rondeau V, Dequae-Merchadou L, Salles-Montaudon N, Emeriau JP, et al. A multi-center trial of the effects of oral nutritional supplementation in critically ill older inpatients. GAGE Group. Groupe Aquitain Geriatrique d'Evaluation. Nutrition. 2000;16:1-5. [PMID: 10674226] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Delmi M, Rapin CH, Bengoa JM, Delmas PD, Vasey H, Bonjour JP. Dietary supplementation in elderly patients with fractured neck of the femur. Lancet. 1990;335:1013-6. [PMID: 1970070] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Ek AC, Unosson M, Larsson J, Von Schenck H, Bjurulf P. The development and healing of pressure sores related to the nutritional state. Clin Nutr. 1991;10:245-50. [PMID: 16839927] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Hartgrink HH, Wille J, König P, Hermans J, Breslau PJ. Pressure sores and tube feeding in patients with a fracture of the hip: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Nutr. 1998;17:287-92. [PMID: 10205352] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Houwing RH, Rozendaal M, Wouters-Wesseling W, Beulens JW, Buskens E, Haalboom JR. A randomised, double-blind assessment of the effect of nutritional supplementation on the prevention of pressure ulcers in hip-fracture patients. Clin Nutr. 2003;22:401-5. [PMID: 12880608] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Theilla M, Singer P, Cohen J, Dekeyser F. A diet enriched in eicosapentanoic acid, gamma-linolenic acid and antioxidants in the prevention of new pressure ulcer formation in critically ill patients with acute lung injury: a randomized, prospective, controlled study. Clin Nutr. 2007;26:752-7. [PMID: 17933438] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Moore Z, Cowman S, Conroy RM. A randomised controlled clinical trial of repositioning, using the 30° tilt, for the prevention of pressure ulcers. J Clin Nurs. 2011;20:2633-44. [PMID: 21702861] doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03736.x CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bergstrom N, Horn SD, Rapp MP, Stern A, Barrett R, Watkiss M. Turning for Ulcer ReductioN: a multisite randomized clinical trial in nursing homes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61:1705-13. [PMID: 24050454] doi:10.1111/jgs.12440 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Vanderwee K, Grypdonck MH, De Bacquer D, Defloor T. Effectiveness of turning with unequal time intervals on the incidence of pressure ulcer lesions. J Adv Nurs. 2007;57:59-68. [PMID: 17184374] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Brown MM, Cornwell J, Weist JK. Reducing the risks to the institutionalized elderly: part I. Depersonalization, negative relocation effects, and medical care deficiencies. Part II. Fire, food poisoning, decubitus ulcer and drug abuse. J Gerontol Nurs. 1981;7:401-7. [PMID: 6912266] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Smith AM, Malone JA. Preventing pressure ulcers in institutionalized elders: assessing the effects of small, unscheduled shifts in body position. Decubitus. 1990;3:20-4. [PMID: 2242233] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Brindle CT, Wegelin JA. Prophylactic dressing application to reduce pressure ulcer formation in cardiac surgery patients. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2012;39:133-42. [PMID: 22415123] doi:10.1097/WON.0b013e318247cb82 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Fader M, Clarke-O'Neill S, Cook D, Dean G, Brooks R, Cottenden A, et al. Management of night-time urinary incontinence in residential settings for older people: an investigation into the effects of different pad changing regimes on skin health. J Clin Nurs. 2003;12:374-86. [PMID: 12709112] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Scott EM, Leaper DJ, Clark M, Kelly PJ. Effects of warming therapy on pressure ulcers—a randomized trial. AORN J. 2001;73:921-7. [PMID: 11378948] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Torra i Bou JE, Segovia Gómez T, Verdú Soriano J, Nolasco Bonmatí A, Rueda López J, Arboix i Perejamo M. The effectiveness of a hyperoxygenated fatty acid compound in preventing pressure ulcers. J Wound Care. 2005;14:117-21. [PMID: 15779642] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Declair V. The usefulness of topical application of essential fatty acids (EFA) to prevent pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage. 1997;43:48-52. [PMID: 9233238] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Cooper P, Gray D. Comparison of two skin care regimes for incontinence. Br J Nurs. 2001;10:S6. [PMID: 12070396] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Beeckman D, Clays E, Van Hecke A, Vanderwee K, Schoonhoven L, Verhaeghe S. A multi-faceted tailored strategy to implement an electronic clinical decision support system for pressure ulcer prevention in nursing homes: a two-armed randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50:475-86. [PMID: 23036149] doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.007 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Defloor T, De Bacquer D, Grypdonck MH. The effect of various combinations of turning and pressure reducing devices on the incidence of pressure ulcers. Int J Nurs Stud. 2005;42:37-46. [PMID: 15582638] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Young T. The 30 degree tilt position vs the 90 degree lateral and supine positions in reducing the incidence of non-blanching erythema in a hospital inpatient population: a randomised controlled trial. J Tissue Viability. 2004;14:88. [PMID: 15709355] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Pring J, Millman P. Evaluating pressure-relieving mattresses. J Wound Care. 1998;7:177-9. [PMID: 9644426] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Russell L, Reynolds TM, Carr J, Evans A, Holmes M. Randomised controlled trial of two pressure-relieving systems. J Wound Care. 2000;9:52-5. [PMID: 11933280] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Nakagami G, Sanada H, Konya C, Kitagawa A, Tadaka E, Matsuyama Y. Evaluation of a new pressure ulcer preventive dressing containing ceramide 2 with low frictional outer layer. J Adv Nurs. 2007;59:520-9. [PMID: 17681081] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Smith RG, Everett E, Tucker L. A double blind trial of silicone barrier cream in the prevention of pressure sores in elderly patients. Journal of Clinical & Experimental Gerontology. 1986;7:337-46. Google Scholar
van der Cammen TJ, O'Callaghan U, Whitefield M. Prevention of pressure sores. A comparison of new and old pressure sore treatments. Br J Clin Pract. 1987;41:1009-11. [PMID: 3332839] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Yap TL, Kennerly SM, Simmons MR, Buncher CR, Miller E, Kim J, et al. Multidimensional team-based intervention using musical cues to reduce odds of facility-acquired pressure ulcers in long-term care: a paired randomized intervention study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61:1552-9. [PMID: 24028358] doi:10.1111/jgs.12422 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Courtney BA, Ruppman JB, Cooper HM. Save our skin: initiative cuts pressure ulcer incidence in half. Nurs Manage. 2006;37:36. [PMID: 16603946] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
McInerney JA. Reducing hospital-acquired pressure ulcer prevalence through a focused prevention program. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2008;21:75-8. [PMID: 18349734] doi:10.1097/01.ASW.0000305410.58350.34 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Rosen J, Mittal V, Degenholtz H, Castle N, Mulsant BH, Hulland S, et al. Ability, incentives, and management feedback: organizational change to reduce pressure ulcers in a nursing home. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2006;7:141-6. [PMID: 16503306] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Tippet AW. Reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers in nursing home residents: a prospective 6-year evaluation. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2009;55:52-8. [PMID: 19934464] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Xakellis GC, Frantz R. The cost of healing pressure ulcers across multiple health care settings. Adv Wound Care. 1996;9:18-22. [PMID: 9069752] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
From the American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York University Clinical Cancer Center, New York, New York; and Carilion Clinic, Roanoke, Virginia.
Note: Clinical practice guidelines are “guides” only and may not apply to all patients and all clinical situations. Thus, they are not intended to override clinicians' judgment. All ACP clinical practice guidelines are considered automatically withdrawn or invalid 5 years after publication or once an update has been issued.
Disclaimer: The authors of this article are responsible for its contents, including any clinical or treatment recommendations.
Acknowledgment: The authors thank Dr. Roger Chou for updating the evidence from the original systematic review for the development of this guideline.
Financial Support: Financial support for the development of this guideline comes exclusively from the ACP operating budget.
Disclosures: Authors followed the policy regarding conflicts of interest described at www.annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=745942. Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M14-1567. A record of conflicts of interest is kept for each Clinical Guidelines Committee meeting and conference call and can be viewed at www.acponline.org/clinical_information/guidelines/guidelines/conflicts_cgc.htm.
Corresponding Author: Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106; e-mail, [email protected]
Current Author Addresses: Drs. Qaseem and Starkey: American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106.
Dr. Mir: New York University Clinical Cancer Center, 160 East 34th Street, New York, NY 10016.
Dr. Denberg: Carilion Clinic, PO Box 13727, Roanoke, VA 24036.
Author Contributions: Conception and design: A. Qaseem, T.P. Mir.
Analysis and interpretation of the data: A. Qaseem, M. Starkey, T.D. Denberg.
Drafting of the article: A. Qaseem, T.P. Mir, M. Starkey, T.D. Denberg.
Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: A. Qaseem, M. Starkey, T.D. Denberg.
Final approval of the article: A. Qaseem, T.P. Mir, T.D. Denberg.
Statistical expertise: A. Qaseem.
Administrative, technical, or logistic support: A. Qaseem, M. Starkey, T.D. Denberg.
Collection and assembly of data: A. Qaseem, M. Starkey.
* This paper, written by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA; Tanveer P. Mir, MD; Melissa Starkey, PhD; and Thomas D. Denberg, MD, PhD, was developed for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Individuals who served on the Clinical Guidelines Committee from initiation of the project until its approval were Thomas D. Denberg, MD, PhD (Chair); Michael J. Barry, MD; Molly Cooke, MD; Paul Dallas, MD; Nick Fitterman, MD; Mary Ann Forciea, MD; Russell P. Harris, MD, MPH; Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH; Tanveer P. Mir, MD; Holger J. Schünemann, MD, PhD; J. Sanford Schwartz, MD; Paul Shekelle, MD, PhD; and Timothy Wilt, MD, MPH. Approved by the ACP Board of Regents on 26 July 2014.