A systematic review of interrater reliability of pressure ulcer classification systems

Department of Nursing Science, Centre for Humanities and Health Sciences, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Journal of Clinical Nursing (Impact Factor: 1.23). 03/2009; 18(3):315-36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02569.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To review systematically the interrater reliability of pressure ulcer classification systems to find out which classification should be used in daily practice.
Pressure ulcer classification systems are important tools in research and practice. They aim at providing accurate and precise communication, documentation and treatment decisions. Pressure ulcer classifications are criticised for their low degree of interrater reliability.
Systematic review.
The data bases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the World Wide Web were searched. Original research studies estimating interrater reliability of pressure ulcer classification systems were included. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment was conducted independently by two reviewers.
Twenty-four out of 339 potentially relevant studies were included in the final data synthesis. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies a meaningful comparison was impossible.
There is at present not enough evidence to recommend a specific pressure ulcer classification system for use in daily practice. Interrater reliability studies are required, in which comparable raters apply different pressure ulcer classification systems to comparable samples.
It is necessary to determine the interrater reliability of pressure ulcer classifications among all users in clinical practice. If interrater reliability is low the use of those systems is questionable. On the basis of this review there are no recommendations as to which system is to be given preference.

Download full-text


Available from: Kathrin Raeder, Jul 01, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Results of reliability and agreement studies are intended to provide information about the amount of error inherent in any diagnosis, score, or measurement. The level of reliability and agreement among users of scales, instruments, or classifications is widely unknown. Therefore, there is a need for rigorously conducted interrater and intrarater reliability and agreement studies. Information about sample selection, study design, and statistical analysis is often incomplete. Because of inadequate reporting, interpretation and synthesis of study results are often difficult. Widely accepted criteria, standards, or guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement in the health care and medical field are lacking. The objective was to develop guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies. Eight experts in reliability and agreement investigation developed guidelines for reporting. Fifteen issues that should be addressed when reliability and agreement are reported are proposed. The issues correspond to the headings usually used in publications. The proposed guidelines intend to improve the quality of reporting.
    International journal of nursing studies 06/2011; 48(6):661-71. DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.016 · 2.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    International journal of nursing studies 03/2011; 48(6):659-60. DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.017 · 2.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to examine interrater reliability and agreement of the diagnosis of moisture lesions as defined by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Differentiation between superficial pressure ulcers and moisture-related skin damages is difficult. To enhance the precision of the identification of moisture lesions, the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel provided wound- and patient-related characteristics. Empirical evidence regarding interrater reliability and agreement among nurses for the detection of moisture-related skin damages in clinical practice is lacking. Observational. Home care clients (n = 339) were independently assessed twice by trained nurses. A head to toe skin inspection was conducted. For the diagnosis of moisture lesion (yes/no), nurses exactly agreed in 95% of all assessed clients. Interrater reliability was intraclass correlation coefficient (1,1) = 0.67 (95% CI 0.61-0.73). Nurses were able to differentiate between home care clients with and without moisture lesions but assessment results contained a high degree of measurement error. It seems that the descriptions for the identification of moisture lesions provided by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel do support the diagnostic process but reliability must be enhanced. Because of low interrater reliability, it is questionable whether the diagnosis of moisture lesions in clinical practice is valid. Measurement error is too high to make adequate inferences for individuals. Definitions and descriptions provided by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, provisions of a single training and images are not sufficient to achieve acceptable interrater reliability in clinical practice.
    Journal of Clinical Nursing 03/2010; 19(5-6):716-20. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03109.x · 1.23 Impact Factor