Development and validation of risk prediction tools for pressure injury occurrence: An umbrella review
======================================================================================================

* Bethany Hillier
* Katie Scandrett
* April Coombe
* Tina Hernandez-Boussard
* Ewout Steyerberg
* Yemisi Takwoingi
* Vladica Velickovic
* Jacqueline Dinnes

## ABSTRACT

**Background** Pressure injuries (PIs) place a substantial burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Risk stratification of those who are at risk of developing PIs allows preventive interventions to be focused on patients who are at the highest risk. The considerable number of risk assessment scales and prediction models available underscore the need for a thorough evaluation of their development, validation and clinical utility.

Our objectives were to identify and describe available risk prediction tools for PI occurrence, their content and development and validation methods used.

**Methods** The umbrella review was conducted according to Cochrane guidance. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, EPISTEMONIKOS, Google Scholar and reference lists were searched to identify relevant systematic reviews. Risk of bias was assessed using adapted AMSTAR-2 criteria. Results were described narratively. All included reviews contributed to build a comprehensive list of risk prediction tools.

**Results** We identified five systematic reviews describing the development and validation of risk prediction tools for pressure injuries, 16 that assessed the prognostic accuracy of the tools and 10 that assessed the clinical effectiveness. Of the five reviews of model development and validation, four included only machine learning models. One review included detail about external validation, and this was the only review to include model performance metrics. Where quality assessment was completed (3 out of 5 reviews), most prediction tools were assessed by review authors as being at high risk of bias and no tools were assessed as being at low risk of bias.

**Conclusions** Available tools do not meet current standards for the development or reporting of risk prediction models. The majority of tools have not been externally validated. Standardised and rigorous approaches to risk prediction model development and validation are needed.

**Registration** The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework ([https://osf.io/tepyk](https://osf.io/tepyk)).

Keywords
*   Development
*   internal
*   external validation
*   prediction
*   prognostic
*   pressure injury
*   ulcer
*   overview

## INTRODUCTION

Pressure injuries (PI) carry a significant healthcare burden. A recent meta-analysis estimated the global burden of PIs to be 13%, two-thirds of which are hospital-acquired PIs (HAPI).1 The average cost of a HAPI has been estimated as $11k per patient, totalling at least $27 billion a year in the United States based on 2.5 million reported cases.2 Length of hospital stay is a large contributing cost, with patients over the age of 75 who develop HAPI having on average a 10-day longer hospital stay compared to those without PI.3

PIs result from prolonged pressure, typically on bony areas like heels, ankles, and the coccyx, and are more common in those with limited mobility, including those who are bedridden or wheelchair users. PIs can develop rapidly, and pose a threat in community, hospital and long-term care settings.

Multicomponent preventive strategies are needed to reduce PI incidence4 with timely implementation to both reduce harm and burden to healthcare systems.5 Where preventive measures fail or are not introduced in adequate time, PI treatment involves cleansing, debridement, topical and biophysical agents, biofilms, growth factors and dressings6 7 8, and in severe cases, surgery may be necessary.5 9

A number of clinical assessment scales for assessing the risk of PI are available (e.g. Braden10 11, Norton12, Waterlow13) but are limited by reliance on subjective clinical judgment. Statistical risk prediction models may offer improved accuracy over clinical assessment scales, however appropriate methods of development and validation are required.14 15 16 Although methods for developing risk prediction models have developed considerably,14 15 17 18 methodological standards of available models have been shown to remain relatively low.17 19–22 Machine learning (ML) algorithms to develop prediction models are increasingly commonplace, but these models are at similarly high risk of bias23 and do not necessarily offer any model performance benefit over the use of statistical methods such as logistic regression.24 Methods for systematic reviews of risk prediction model studies have also improved,25–27 with tools such as PROBAST (Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool)28 now available to allow critical evaluation of study methods.

Although several systematic reviews of PI risk assessment scales and risk prediction models for PI (subsequently referred to as risk prediction tools) are available29–38, these have been demonstrated to frequently focus on single or small numbers of scales or models, use variable review methods and show a lack of consensus about the accuracy and clinical effectiveness of available tools.39 We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews of risk prediction tools for PI to gain further insight into the methods used for tool development and validation, and to summarise the content of available tools.

## METHODS

### Protocol registration and reporting of findings

We followed guidance for conducting umbrella reviews provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Intervention Reviews.40 The review was reported in accordance with guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)41 (see Appendix 1), adapted for risk prediction model reviews as required. The protocol was registered on the Open Science

Framework ([https://osf.io/tepyk](https://osf.io/tepyk)).

### Literature search

A single sensitive search strategy, developed and tested by an experienced information specialist (AC), was conducted in January 2023. Electronic searches of MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and CINAHL Plus EBSCO were conducted, employing well-established systematic review and prognostic search filters42–44 combined with specific keyword and controlled vocabulary terms relating to PI appropriate to each source, without restrictions on publication year. Additional simplified searches were undertaken in EPISTEMONIKOS and Google Scholar due to the more limited search functionality of these two sources. The reference lists of all publications reporting reviews of prediction tools (systematic or non-systematic) were reviewed to identify additional eligible systematic reviews and to populate a list of PI risk prediction tools. Title and abstract screening and full text screening were conducted independently and in duplicate by two of four reviewers (BH, JD, YT, KS). Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or referral to a third reviewer.

### Eligibility criteria for this umbrella review

Published English-language systematic reviews of risk prediction models developed for adult patients at risk of PI in any setting were included. Reviews of clinical risk assessment tools or models developed using statistical or ML methods were included, both with or without internal or external validation. The use of any PI classification system6 45–47 as a reference standard was eligible. Reviews of the diagnosis or staging of those with suspected or existing PIs or chronic wounds, reviews of prognostic factor and predictor finding studies, and models exclusively using pressure sensor data were excluded.

Systematic reviews were required to report a comprehensive search of at least two electronic databases, and at least one other indicator of systematic methods (i.e. explicit eligibility criteria, formal quality assessment of included studies, sufficient data presented to allow results to be reproduced, or review stages (e.g. search screening) conducted independently in duplicate.

### Data extraction and quality assessment

Data extraction forms (Appendix 3) were developed using the CHARMS checklist (CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies) and Cochrane Prognosis group template.48 49 One reviewer extracted data concerning: review characteristics, model details, number of studies and participants, study quality and results. Extractions were independently checked by a second reviewer. Where discrepancies in model or primary study details were noted between reviews, we accessed the primary model development publications where possible.

The methodological quality of included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews)50, adapted for systematic reviews of risk prediction models (Appendix 4). Quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second (BH, JD, KS), with disagreements resolved by consensus. Our adapted AMSTAR-2 contains six critical items, and limitations in any of these items reduces the overall validity of a review.50

### Synthesis methods

Reviews were considered according to whether any information concerning model development and validation were reported. Available data were tabulated and a narrative synthesis provided. All risk prediction models identified are listed in Appendix 5 Table S4, including those for which no information about model development or validation was provided at systematic review level. Where possible, the predictors included in the tools were extracted at review level and categorised into relevant groups in order to describe the candidate predictors associated with risk of PI. No statistical synthesis of systematic review results was conducted. Reviews reporting results as prognostic accuracy (i.e. risk classification according to a binary decision) or clinical effectiveness (i.e. impact on patient management and outcomes) are reported elsewhere.39

## RESULTS

### Characteristics of included reviews

Following de-duplication of search results, 6301 unique records remained, of which 110 were selected for full text assessment. We obtained the full text of 104 publications of which 28 met all eligibility criteria for inclusion (see Figure 1). Five reviews reported details about model development and internal validation36 37 51–53, one of which also considered external validation52; 16 reported accuracy data29 31–35 38 54–62; and 10 reported clinical effectiveness data.30 54 56 59 63–68 Three reviews reported both accuracy and effectiveness data.54 56 59

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/05/08/2024.05.07.24306999/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/08/2024.05.07.24306999/F1)

Figure 1. 
PRISMA41 flowchart: identification, screening and selection process List of full-text articles excluded, with reasons, is given in Appendix 5.

Table 1 provides a summary of systematic review methods for all 28 reviews according to whether or not they reported any tool development methods (see Appendix 5 for full details). The five reviews reporting prediction tool development and validation were all published within the last five years (2019 to 2023) compared to reviews focused on the clinical utility of available tools (published from 2006 to 2022). Reviews about tool development focused primarily on ML-based models (one58 of the five reviews limited inclusion to empirically derived models including ML-based models, and four (80%) considered only ML models) and frequently did not report study eligibility criteria related study participants or setting. Only one review (4%) concerning the clinical utility of models included ML-based models,38 but more often restricted study inclusion by population or setting: hospital inpatients (ward or acute unit) (n = 4),33 38 63 67 acute settings (n=5),34 59 61 62 66 or surgical patients (n=1)31, or studies in long-term care settings (n=2)29 35 or the elderly (n=1).58

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/08/2024.05.07.24306999/T1)

Table 1. Summary of included systematic review characteristics

On average reviews about tool development included more studies than reviews of clinical utility (median 22 compared to 13), more participants (median 234,105 compared to 6,106) and covered more prediction tools (median 21 compared to 3) (Table 1). Eight reviews (35%) about clinical utility included only one risk assessment scale, whereas reviews of tool development included at least 3 different risk prediction models. The PROBAST tool for quality assessment of prediction model studies was used in 60% (n=3) of tool development reviews37 52 53 compared to none of the reviews of clinical utility, however the remaining two reviews of tool development did not report any quality assessment of included studies (2 (40%) compared to 4 (17%) of reviews of clinical utility). Meta- analysis was conducted in one of five (20%) reviews of tool development compared to more than half of reviews of clinical utility (13, 57%).

### Methodological quality of included reviews

The quality of included reviews was generally low (Figure 2; Appendix 5 for detailed assessments).

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/05/08/2024.05.07.24306999/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/08/2024.05.07.24306999/F2)

Figure 2. 
Summary of AMSTAR-2 assessment results AMSTAR – A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; Item 1 – Adequate research question/ inclusion criteria?; Item 2 – Protocol and justifications for deviations?; Item 3 – Reasons for study design inclusions?; Item 4 – Comprehensive search strategy?; Item 5 – Study selection in duplicate?; Item 6 – Data extraction in duplicate?; Item 7 – Excluded studies list (with justifications)?; Item 8 – Included studies description adequate?; Item 9 – Assessment of RoB/quality satisfactory?; Item 10 – Studies’ sources of funding reported?; Item 11 – Appropriate statistical synthesis method?; Item 12 – Assessment of impact of RoB on synthesised results?; Item 13 – Assessment of impact of RoB on review results?; Item 14 – Discussion/investigation of heterogeneity?; Item 15 – Conflicts of interest reported?; N/A – not applicable; RoB – risk of bias; QA – quality assessment. Further details on AMSTAR items are given in Appendix 4, and results per review are given in Appendix 5. Note that where AMSTAR-2 assessment was applied to overlapping reviews (n=3) for prognostic accuracy and clinical effectiveness separately, and resulted in differing judgements for each review question, the judgements for the prognostic accuracy review question are displayed here for simplicity.

The majority of reviews (all five reviews about tool development and 70% (16/23) reviews of clinical utility) partially met the AMSTAR-2 criteria for the literature search (i.e. searched two databases, reported search strategy or key words, and justified language restrictions if used), with only two (both reviews of clinical utility) meeting all criteria for ‘Yes’ (i.e. searching grey literature and reference lists, with the search conducted within 2 years of publication). Nineteen reviews (68%) conducted study selection in duplicate (4/5 (80%) of review about tool development and 15/23 (65%) of clinical utility reviews). Conflicts of interest were reported in all five tool development reviews and 74% of clinical utility reviews (17/23). Reviews scored poorly on the remaining AMSTAR- 2 items, with at most half of reviews meeting the stipulated AMSTAR-2 criteria. Seven reviews (25%) used an appropriate method of quality assessment of included studies and provided itemisation of judgements per study. No review scored ‘Yes’ for all AMSTAR-2 items in either category.

### Findings

Of the 28 reviews, 23 reviews focused on the clinical utility of prediction tools provided no details about the development or validation of included models (see Appendix 5), and gave only limited detail about setting and study design. These reviews included a total of 63 different prediction tools, predominantly derived by clinical experts, as opposed to empirically-derived models. The most commonly included tools were the Braden (included in 20 reviews), Waterlow (n=14 reviews), Norton (n=11 reviews), and Cubbin and Jackson scales (n=8 reviews).

The five systematic reviews that reported detailed information about model development and validation included 62 prediction models, 40 of which were unique to these five reviews (between one37 and 2052 unique models were included per review) (Table 2). Between three51 and 3536 model development studies were included; one review52 also included 7 external validation studies.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/08/2024.05.07.24306999/T2)

Table 2. Results of reviews reporting model development and validation

Electronic health records (EHRs) were used for model development in all studies in one review37 and in 18 of 22 models (82%) in a second review.53 One review52 reported the use of prospectively or retrospectively collected data (n=10 studies and n=11 studies, respectively). No review included information about the thresholds used define whether a patient is at risk of developing PIs. Four reviews included detail about the predictors included in each model.

The largest review36 reported that logistic regression was the most commonly reported modelling approach (20/35 models), followed by random forest (n=18), decision tree (n=12) and support vector machine (n=12) approaches. Logistic regression was also the most frequently used in two other reviews (16/2152 and 15/2253). Primary studies frequently compared the use of different ML methods using the same datasets, such that ‘other’ ML methods were reported with little to no further detail (e.g. 19 studies in the review by Dweekat and colleagues36).

Approaches to internal validation were not well reported in the primary studies. One review52 found no information on internal validation for 76% (16/21) of studies; with re-sampling reported in two and tree-pruning, cross-validation and split sample reported in one study each. Another36 reported no information about internal validation for 20% of studies (7/35) and the use of cross-validation (n=10), split sample (n=10) techniques, or both (n=8) for the remainder. Cross-validation was used in more than half (12/22) of studies in another.53 Only one review reported any detail about methods for selection of model predictors52: 29% (6/21) selected predictors by univariate analysis prior to modelling and 9 used stepwise selection for final model predictors; 11 (52%) clearly reported candidate predictors, and all 21 clearly reported final model predictors. The same review52 reported 15 models (71%) with no information about missing data, and only two using imputation techniques.

Model performance measures were reported by three reviews37 52 53, all of which noted considerable variation in reported metrics and model performance including C-statistics (0.71 to 0.89 in 10 studies53), F1 score (0.02 to 0.99 in 9 studies53), G-means (0.628 to 0.822 in four studies37), and observed versus expected ratios (0.97 to 1 in 3 studies52). Two reviews reported accuracy metrics associated with included models: sensitivity ranged between 0.48 and 0.85 and specificity between 0.70 and 0.99 for 7 models in one review,37 compared to sensitivity 0.08 to 0.99 (for 19 studies52) and specificity 0.63 to 1.00 (for 18 studies52) in another. AUC ranged between 0.78 and 0.99 for 16 studies52.

Shi and colleagues52 included 7 external validations using data from long-term care (n=3) or acute hospital care (n=4) settings. All were judged to be at unclear (n=3) or high (n=4) risk of bias using PROBAST. Model performance metrics for five models (TNH-PUPP69, Berlowitz 11-item model70, Berlowitz MDS adjustment model71, interRAI PURS72, Compton ICU model73) included C-statistics between 0.61 and 0.9 and reported observed versus expected ratios were between 0.91 and 0.97.

The review also reported external validation studies for the ‘SS scale’ and the prePURSE study tool, but no model performance metrics were given. A meta-analysis of C-statistics and O/E ratios was performed, including values from both development and external validation cohorts (Table 2).

Parameters related to model development were not consistently reported: C-statistics ranged between 0.71 and 0.89 (n = 10 studies); observed versus expected ratios ranged between 0.97 and 1 (n=3 studies). For more detailed information about individual models, including predictors, specific model performance metrics and sample sizes (Appendix 5).

### Included tools and predictors

A total of 116 risk prediction tools were identified (Table 3); 103 were identified from the 28 included systematic reviews and 13 were identified from screening the reference lists of the ‘non-systematic’ reviews that were considered during full text assessment. Full details obtained at review-level are reported in Appendix 5 Table S4.

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/08/2024.05.07.24306999/T3)

Table 3. Summary of tool characteristics, extracted at review-level

Tools were categorised as having been developed with (52/116, 45%) or without (64, 55%) the use of ML methods. Prospectively collected data was used for model development for 19% of tools (22/116), retrospectively collected data for 40% (46/116), including 18 ML-based models using EHRs, or was not reported (48/116). Information about the study populations was poorly reported, however study setting was reported for 102 prediction tools. Thirty-four tools were reported to have been developed in hospital inpatients, and 20 were developed in long-term care settings, rehabilitation units or nursing homes or hospices. Where reported (n=92), sample sizes ranged from 1574 to 1,252,313.75–82 The approach to internal validation used for the prediction tools (e.g. cross- validation versus split sample) was not reported at review-level for almost three quarters of tools (81/116, 70%).

We could extract information about the predictors for only 53 of the 116 tools (Table 4 and Appendix 5). The most frequently included predictor was mobility (27/53, 51%), followed by pre-disposing diseases/conditions (26/53, 49%), medical treatment/care received (22/53, 42%) and continence (22/53, 42%). Tools often (23/53, 45%) included multiple pre-existing conditions or comorbidities and multiple types of treatment or medication as predictors. Other common predictors include age, nutrition, mental status, activity, skin conditions and laboratory values (34% to 40% of models).

View this table:
[Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/08/2024.05.07.24306999/T4)

Table 4. Predictor categories and frequency (%) of inclusion in N=53 models.

Seven tools incorporated scores from other established risk prediction scales as a predictor, with six including Braden scores and one including the Norton score.

Only one review52 reported the presentation format of included tools, coded as ‘score system’ (n=11), ‘formula equation’ (n=3), ‘nomogram scale’ (n=2), or ‘not reported’ (n=6).

## DISCUSSION

This umbrella review summarises data from 28 eligible systematic reviews of PI risk prediction tools. Quality assessment using an adaptation of AMSTAR-2 revealed that most reviews were conducted to a relatively poor standard. Critical flaws were identified, including inadequate or absent reporting of protocols (23/28, 82%), inappropriate meta-analysis methods (11/15, 73%) and lack of consideration for risk of bias judgements when discussing review results (14/28, 50%). Despite the large number of risk prediction models identified, only five reviews focused on the development and validation of predominantly ML-based prediction models. The remaining reviews aimed to summarise evidence for the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) or effectiveness of identified models. For many (44/64, 69%) prediction tools that were developed without the use of ML, we were not able to determine whether reliable and robust statistical methods were used or whether models were essentially risk assessment tools developed based on expert knowledge. For over half (63/116, 54%) of the identified tools, predictors included in the final models were not reported. Details of study populations and settings were also lacking. It was not always clear from the reviews whether the poor reporting occurred at review level or in the original primary study publications.

A recent systematic review of risk of bias in machine learning developed prediction models found that most models are of poor methodological quality and are at high risk of bias.23 In our set of reviews, of the three reviews that conducted a risk of bias assessment using the PROBAST tool, all models were found to be at high or unclear risk of bias.52

Where the method of internal validation was reported, split-sample and cross-validation were the most commonly used techniques, however, detail was limited, and it was not possible to determine whether appropriate methods had been used. Although split-sample approaches have been favoured for model validation, more recent empirical work suggests that bootstrap-based optimism correction83 or cross-validation84 are preferred approaches. None of the included reviews reported the use of optimism correction approaches.

Model development algorithms included logistic regression, decision trees and random forests, with a vast number of ML-based models having been developed in the last five years. In contrast to logistic regression approaches, decision trees and random forests while providing valuable risk classification, may not give a proper risk probability. Instead, they commonly categorise patients into binary ‘at risk’ or ‘not at risk’ groups. Although the risk probabilities generated in logistic regression prediction models can be useful for clinical decision making, it was not possible to derive any information about thresholds used to define ‘at risk’ or ‘not at risk’, and for most reviews, it was unclear what the final model comprised of. This lack of transparency poses potential hurdles in applying these models effectively in clinical settings.

Only one review included external validations of previously developed models52, however limited details of model performance were presented. External validation is necessary to ensure a model is both reproducible and generalisable85 86, bringing the usefulness of the models included in these reviews into question. The PROGRESS framework suggests that multiple external validation studies should be conducted using independent datasets from different locations.15 In the only review that included model validation studies52, it is unclear whether these studies were conducted in different locations, and all were conducted in the same setting. PROGRESS also suggests that external validations are carried out in a variety of relevant settings. Four out of eight validations were described as using ‘temporal’ data, which suggests that the validation population is largely the same as the development population but with use of data from different timeframes. This approach has been described as ‘between’ internal and external validation, further emphasising the need for well- designed external validation studies.85 Furthermore, none of the eight external validations reported model recalibration. Recent evidence suggests focus should be placed on large, well-designed external validation studies to validate and improve promising models (using recalibration and updating87), rather than developing a multitude of new ones.18 15 Model validation and recalibration should be a continuous process, and this is something that future research should address. Following external validation, the PROGRESS framework15 suggests that effectiveness studies should be conducted following external validation to assess the effect of the model on decision making, patient outcomes and costs.

Despite the advances in methods for developing risk prediction models, scales developed using clinical expertise such as the Braden Scale, Norton Scale, Waterlow Score and Cubbin-Jackson Scale are extensively discussed in numerous clinical practice guidelines for patient risk assessment, and are commonly used in clinical practice.6 88 Although guidelines recognise their low accuracy, they are still acknowledged, while other risk prediction models are not even considered. This may be due to the availability of at least some clinical trials evaluating the clinical utility of scales.39 Some scales, such as the Braden scale, are so widely used that they have become an integral component of risk assessment for PI in clinical practice, and have even been incorporated into EHRs. Their widespread use may impede the progress towards development, validation and evaluation of more accurate and innovative risk prediction models. Striking a balance between tradition and embracing advancements is crucial for effective implementation in healthcare settings and improving patient outcomes.

### Other existing evidence

We are aware of one additional systematic review of ML prediction models for PIs published after our search was conducted.89 Pei and colleagues included 18 models, all of which were already included in our list of identified models. The aim of the review was to assess risk factors related to HAPIs, rather than assess tools to predict PIs and only ML-based models were included. A meta-analysis was conducted by pooling prognostic accuracy measures across all models that provided 2x2 data (n=14 models). The pooled AUC across the 14 models was 0.94, pooled sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.78–0.80) and pooled specificity was 0.87 (95% CI 0.88–0.87).89 A meta-regression was conducted to investigate whether these values differed by machine learning algorithm; no difference based on algorithm was found. Review authors found 16/18 studies at high risk of bias based on PROBAST. We had low confidence in the review itself, through applying our adapted AMSTAR-2 criteria; one critical flaw was their use of inappropriate meta-analysis methods (not using a hierarchical model for pooling sensitivity and specificity).

### Strengths and limitations

Our umbrella reviews were conducted to a high standard, following Cochrane guidance40, and with a highly sensitive search strategy designed by an experienced information specialist. Although we excluded non-English publications due to time and resource constraints, where possible these publications were used to identify additional eligible risk prediction models. To some extent our review is limited by the use of AMSTAR-2 for quality assessment of included reviews. AMSTAR-2 was not designed for assessment of diagnostic or prognostic studies and, although we made some adaptations, many of the existing and amended criteria relate to the quality of reporting of the reviews as opposed to methodological quality. There is scope for further work to establish criteria for assessing systematic reviews of prediction models.

The main limitation, however, was the lack of detail about risk prediction models and risk prediction model performance that could be determined from the included systematic reviews. To be as comprehensive as possible in model identification, we were relatively generous in our definition of ‘systematic’, and this may have contributed to the often poor level of detail provided by included reviews. It is likely, however, that reporting was poor in many of the primary studies contributing to these reviews. Excluding the ML-based models, more than half of available risk prediction scales or tools were published prior to the year 2000. The fact that the original versions of reporting guidelines for diagnostic accuracy studies90 and risk prediction models91 were not published until 2003 and 2015 respectively, is likely to have contributed to poor reporting. In contrast, the ML-based models were published between 2000 and 2022, with a median year of 2020. Reporting guidelines for development and validation of ML-based models are more recent92 or still in development93, but aim to improve the reporting standards and understanding of evolving ML technologies in healthcare.

## CONCLUSIONS

There is a very large body of evidence reporting various risk prediction scales, tool and models for PI which has been summarised across multiple systematic reviews of varying methodological quality. Only five systematic reviews reported the development and validation of models to predict risk of PIs. It seems that for the most part, available models do not meet current standards for the development or reporting of risk prediction models. Furthermore, most available models, including ML-based models have not been validated beyond the original population in which they were developed. Identification of the optimal risk prediction model for PI from those currently available would require a high-quality systematic review of the primary literature, ideally limited to studies conducted to a high methodological standard. It is evident from our findings that there is still a lack of consensus on the optimal risk prediction model for PI, highlighting the need for more standardised and rigorous approaches in future research.

## Supporting information

Appendices [[supplements/306999_file02.pdf]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript and supplementary file

## Author Contributions

**Conceptualisation:** Bethany Hillier, Katie Scandrett, April Coombe, Tina Hernandez-Boussard, Ewout Steyerberg, Yemisi Takwoingi, Vladica Velickovic, Jacqueline Dinnes

**Data curation:** Bethany Hillier, Katie Scandrett, April Coombe, Jacqueline Dinnes

**Formal analysis:** Bethany Hillier, Katie Scandrett, Jacqueline Dinnes

**Funding acquisition:** Yemisi Takwoingi, Vladica Velickovic, Jacqueline Dinnes

**Investigation:** Bethany Hillier, Katie Scandrett, April Coombe, Yemisi Takwoingi, Jacqueline Dinnes

**Methodology:** Bethany Hillier, Katie Scandrett, April Coombe, Tina Hernandez-Boussard, Ewout Steyerberg, Yemisi Takwoingi, Vladica Velickovic, Jacqueline Dinnes

**Project administration:** Bethany Hillier, Yemisi Takwoingi, Jacqueline Dinnes

**Resources:** Bethany Hillier, Katie Scandrett

**Supervision:** Yemisi Takwoingi, Jacqueline Dinnes

**Writing – original draft:** Bethany Hillier, Katie Scandrett, April Coombe, Jacqueline Dinnes

**Writing – review & editing:** Bethany Hillier, Katie Scandrett, April Coombe, Tina Hernandez-Boussard, Ewout Steyerberg, Yemisi Takwoingi, Vladica Velickovic, Jacqueline Dinnes

## Funding

This work was commissioned and supported by Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany). The contract with the University of Birmingham was agreed on the legal understanding that the authors had the freedom to publish results regardless of the findings.

YT, JD, BH, KS and AC are funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). This paper presents independent research supported by the NIHR Birmingham BRC at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

## Conflicting Interests

The authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: VV is an employee of Paul Hartmann AG; ES and THB received consultancy fees from Paul Hartmann AG. All other authors received no personal funding or personal compensation from Paul Hartmann AG and have declared that no competing interests exist.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mrs. Rosie Boodell (University of Birmingham, UK) for her help in acquiring the publications necessary to complete this piece of work.

## Footnotes

*   **Email addresses** b.hillier{at}bham.ac.uk (BH); k.e.scandrett{at}bham.ac.uk (KS); a.r.coombe{at}bham.ac.uk (AC); boussard{at}stanford.edu (THB); e.w.steyerberg{at}lumc.nl (ES); y.takwoingi{at}bham.ac.uk (YT); vladica.velickovic{at}hartmann.info (VV)

*   Received May 7, 2024.
*   Revision received May 7, 2024.
*   Accepted May 8, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Li Z, Lin F, Thalib L, et al. Global prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries in hospitalised adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2020;105:103–546. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103546
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103546&link_type=DOI) 

2.  2.Padula WV, Delarmente BA. The national cost of hospital-acquired pressure injuries in the United States. Int Wound J 2019;16(3):634–40. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13071 [published Online First: 2019/01/28]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/iwj.13071&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

3.  3.Theisen S, Drabik A, Stock S. Pressure ulcers in older hospitalised patients and its impact on length of stay: a retrospective observational study. J Clin Nurs 2012;21(3-4):380–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03915.x [published Online First: 2011/12/09]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03915.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22150944&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

4.  4.Sullivan N, Schoelles K. Preventing In-Facility Pressure Ulcers as a Patient Safety Strategy. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013;158(5.2):410-16. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303051-00008
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303051-00008&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23460098&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000316058600008&link_type=ISI) 

5.  5.Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Preventing pressure ulcers. Cologne, Germany 2006 [updated 2018 Nov 15. Available from: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK326430/?report=classic](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK326430/?report=classic) accessed Feb 2023].
    
    

6.  6.Haesler E. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline. 2019 [Available from: [https://internationalguideline.com/2019](https://internationalguideline.com/2019) accessed Feb 2023].
    
    

7.  7.Walker RM, Gillespie BM, McInnes E, et al. Prevention and treatment of pressure injuries: A meta- synthesis of Cochrane Reviews. Journal of Tissue Viability 2020;29(4):227–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2020.05.004
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jtv.2020.05.004&link_type=DOI) 

8.  8.Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N, et al. Beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing and treating pressure ulcers: an overview of Cochrane Reviews and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;8(8):Cd013761. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013761.pub2 [published Online First: 2021/08/16]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/14651858.CD013761.pub2&link_type=DOI) 

9.  9.Russo CA, Steiner C, Spector W. Hospitalizations Related to Pressure Ulcers, 2006. HCUP Statistical Brief: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. 2008.
    
    

10. 10.Braden B, Bergstrom N. A Conceptual Schema for the Study of the Etiology of Pressure Sores. Rehabilitation Nursing 1987;12(1):8–16. doi: 10.1002/j.2048-7940.1987.tb00541.x
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/j.2048-7940.1987.tb00541.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3643620&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

11. 11.Bergstrom N, Braden BJ, Laguzza A, et al. The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk. Nurs Res 1987;36(4):205–10.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00006199-198705000-00025&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3299278&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1987J233400002&link_type=ISI) 

12. 12.Norton D. Geriatric nursing problems. Int Nurs Rev 1962;9:39–41.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=14480428&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

13. 13.Waterlow J. Pressure sores: a risk assessment card. Nursing Times 1985;81:49–55.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3844179&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

14. 14.Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE, Jr.. Prediction models need appropriate internal, internal-external, and external validation. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:245–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.04.005 [published Online First: 2015/04/18]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.04.005&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25981519&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

15. 15.Steyerberg EW, Moons KGM, van der Windt DA, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: Prognostic Model Research. PLOS Medicine 2013;10(2):e1001381. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001381
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001381&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23393430&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

16. 16.Siontis GCM, Tzoulaki I, Castaldi PJ, et al. External validation of new risk prediction models is infrequent and reveals worse prognostic discrimination. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2015;68(1):25–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.007
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.007&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25441703&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

17. 17.Bouwmeester W, Zuithoff NPA, Mallett S, et al. Reporting and Methods in Clinical Prediction Research: A Systematic Review. PLOS Medicine 2012;9(5):e1001221. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001221
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001221&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

18. 18.Van Calster B, Steyerberg EW, Wynants L, et al. There is no such thing as a validated prediction model. BMC Medicine 2023;21(1):70. doi: 10.1186/s12916-023-02779-w
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12916-023-02779-w&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=36829188&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

19. 19.Wynants L, Calster BV, Collins GS, et al. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid- 19: systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ 2020;369:m1328. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1328
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNjkvYXByMDdfMi9tMTMyOCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA1LzA4LzIwMjQuMDUuMDcuMjQzMDY5OTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

20. 20.Ma J, Dhiman P, Qi C, et al. Poor handling of continuous predictors in clinical prediction models using logistic regression: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2023;161:140–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.07.017 [published Online First: 2023/08/02]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.07.017&link_type=DOI) 

21. 21.Dhiman P, Ma J, Qi C, et al. Sample size requirements are not being considered in studies developing prediction models for binary outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2023;23(1):188. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02008-1
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12874-023-02008-1&link_type=DOI) 

22. 22.Moriarty AS, Meader N, Snell KIE, et al. Predicting relapse or recurrence of depression: systematic review of prognostic models. Br J Psychiatry 2022;221(2):448–58. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2021.218
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1192/bjp.2021.218&link_type=DOI) 

23. 23. Andaur Navarro CL, Damen JAA, Takada T, et al. Risk of bias in studies on prediction models developed using supervised machine learning techniques: systematic review. BMJ 2021;375:n2281. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2281
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNzUvb2N0MjBfMy9uMjI4MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA1LzA4LzIwMjQuMDUuMDcuMjQzMDY5OTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

24. 24.Christodoulou E, Ma J, Collins GS, et al. A systematic review shows no performance benefit of machine learning over logistic regression for clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;110:12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.004 [published Online First: 20190211]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30763612&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

25. 25.Debray TPA, Damen JAAG, Snell KIE, et al. A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction model performance. BMJ 2017;356:i6460. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6460
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE4OiIzNTYvamFuMDVfMTEvaTY0NjAiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNS8wOC8yMDI0LjA1LjA3LjI0MzA2OTk5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

26. 26.Riley RD, van der Windt D, Croft P, et al. Prognosis research in healthcare: concepts, methods, and impact: Oxford University Press 2019.
    
    

27. 27.Snell KIE, Levis B, Damen JAA, et al. Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models for individual prognosis or diagnosis: checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (TRIPOD-SRMA). BMJ 2023;381:e073538. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-073538
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE5OiIzODEvbWF5MDNfNi9lMDczNTM4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDUvMDgvMjAyNC4wNS4wNy4yNDMwNjk5OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

28. 28.Wolff RF, Moons KGM, Riley RD, et al. PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies. Annals of Internal Medicine 2019;170(1):51–58. doi: 10.7326/M18-1376
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M18-1376&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30596875&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

29. 29.Chen HL, Shen WQ, Liu P. A Meta-analysis to Evaluate the Predictive Validity of the Braden Scale for Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment in Long-term Care. Ostomy/wound management 2016;62(9):20–8.
    
    

30. 30.Baris N, Karabacak BG, Alpar SE. The Use of the Braden Scale in Assessing Pressure Ulcers in Turkey: A Systematic Review. Advances in skin & wound care 2015;28:349–57. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000465299.99194.e6
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.ASW.0000465299.99194.e6&link_type=DOI) 

31. 31.He W, Liu P, Chen HL. The Braden Scale cannot be used alone for assessing pressure ulcer risk in surgical patients: a meta-analysis. Ostomy/wound management 2012;58:34–40.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22316631&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

32. 32.Huang C, Ma Y, Wang C, et al. Predictive validity of the braden scale for pressure injury risk assessment in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nursing open 2021;8:2194–207. doi: 10.1002/nop2.792
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/nop2.792&link_type=DOI) 

33. 33.Park SH, Choi YK, Kang CB. Predictive validity of the Braden Scale for pressure ulcer risk in hospitalized patients. Journal of Tissue Viability 2015;24:102–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2015.05.001
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jtv.2015.05.001&link_type=DOI) 

34. 34.Wei M, Wu L, Chen Y, et al. Predictive Validity of the Braden Scale for Pressure Ulcer Risk in Critical Care: A Meta-Analysis. Nursing in critical care 2020;25:165–70. doi: 10.1111/nicc.12500
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/nicc.12500&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

35. 35.Wilchesky M, Lungu O. Predictive and concurrent validity of the Braden scale in long-term care: A meta-analysis. Wound Repair and Regeneration 2015;23:44–56. doi: 10.1111/wrr.12261
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/wrr.12261&link_type=DOI) 

36. 36.Dweekat OY, Lam SS, McGrath L. Machine Learning Techniques, Applications, and Potential Future Opportunities in Pressure Injuries (Bedsores) Management: A Systematic Review. International journal of environmental research and public health 2023;20(1) doi: 10.3390/ijerph20010796
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/ijerph20010796&link_type=DOI) 

37. 37.Jiang M, Ma Y, Guo S, et al. Using Machine Learning Technologies in Pressure Injury Management: Systematic Review. JMIR Medical Informatics 2021;9(3):e25704. doi: 10.2196/25704
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2196/25704&link_type=DOI) 

38. 38.Qu C, Luo W, Zeng Z, et al. The predictive effect of different machine learning algorithms for pressure injuries in hospitalized patients: A network meta-analyses. Heliyon 2022;8(11):e11361. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11361
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11361&link_type=DOI) 

39. 39.Hillier B, Scandrett K, Coombe A, et al. Accuracy and clinical effectiveness of risk prediction tools for pressure injury occurrence: An umbrella review (pre-print). MedRxiv 2024 doi: TBC (UPDATE ME)
    
    

40. 40.Pollock M, Fernandes RM BL, Pieper D, Hartling L,. Chapter V: Overviews of Reviews. In: Higgins JPT TJ, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA ed. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 63 (updated February 2022). Available from [www.training.cochrane.org/handbook](http://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook): Cochrane 2022.
    
    

41. 41.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Medicine 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19621072&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

42. 42.Ingui BJ, Rogers MA. Searching for clinical prediction rules in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001;8(4):391–7. doi: 10.1136/jamia.2001.0080391 [published Online First: 2001/06/22]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1136/jamia.2001.0080391&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11418546&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

43. 43.Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Optimal Search Strategies for Detecting Clinically Sound Prognostic Studies in EMBASE: An Analytic Survey. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2005;12(4):481–85. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1752
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1197/jamia.M1752&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15802476&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

44. 44.Geersing G-J, Bouwmeester W, Zuithoff P, et al. Search Filters for Finding Prognostic and Diagnostic Prediction Studies in Medline to Enhance Systematic Reviews. PLOS ONE 2012;7(2):e32844. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032844
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0032844&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22393453&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

45. 45.NHS. Pressure ulcers: revised definition and measurement. Summary and recommendations 2018 [Available from: [https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/NSTPP-summary-recommendations.pdf](https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/NSTPP-summary-recommendations.pdf) accessed Feb 2023].
    
    

46. 46.AHCPR. Pressure ulcer treatment. : Agency for Health Care Policy and Research 1994:1–25.
    
    

47. 47.Harker J. Pressure ulcer classification: the Torrance system. Journal of Wound Care 2000;9(6):275–77. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2000.9.6.26233
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.12968/jowc.2000.9.6.26233&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11933341&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

48. 48.Moons KGM, de Groot JAH, Bouwmeester W, et al. Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies: The CHARMS Checklist. PLOS Medicine 2014;11(10):e1001744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001744
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001744&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25314315&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

49. 49.Cochrane. DE form example prognostic models - scoping review: The Cochrane Collaboration: The Prognosis Methods Group; [Available from: [https://methods.cochrane.org/prognosis/tools](https://methods.cochrane.org/prognosis/tools) accessed Feb 2023].
    
    

50. 50.Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017;358:j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE4OiIzNTgvc2VwMjFfMTYvajQwMDgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNS8wOC8yMDI0LjA1LjA3LjI0MzA2OTk5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

51. 51.Ribeiro F, Fidalgo F, Silva A, et al. Literature review of machine-learning algorithms for pressure ulcer prevention: Challenges and opportunities: MDPI 2021.
    
    

52. 52.Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N. Evaluating the development and validation of empirically-derived prognostic models for pressure ulcer risk assessment: A systematic review. International journal of nursing studies 2019;89:88–103. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.08.005
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.08.005&link_type=DOI) 

53. 53.Zhou Y, Yang X, Ma S, et al. A systematic review of predictive models for hospital-acquired pressure injury using machine learning. Nursing open 2022;30 doi: 10.1002/nop2.1429
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/nop2.1429&link_type=DOI) 

54. 54.Chou R, Dana T, Bougatsos C, et al. Pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention: a systematic comparative effectiveness review. Annals of internal medicine 2013;159(1):28–38.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-159-1-201307020-00006&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23817702&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000321516200004&link_type=ISI) 

55. 55.García-Fernández FP, Pancorbo-Hidalgo PL, Agreda JJS. Predictive Capacity of Risk Assessment Scales and Clinical Judgment for Pressure Ulcers: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Wound Ostomy & Continence Nursing 2014;41(1):24–34. doi: 10.1097/01.WON.0000438014.90734.a2
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.WON.0000438014.90734.a2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24280770&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

56. 56.Pancorbo-Hidalgo PL, Garcia-Fernandez FP, Lopez-Medina IM, et al. Risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs 2006;54(1):94–110. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03794.x
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03794.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16553695&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000236246800012&link_type=ISI) 

57. 57.Park SH, Lee HS. Assessing Predictive Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Scales- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Iranian journal of public health 2016;45(2):122–33.
    
    

58. 58.Park SH, Lee YS, Kwon YM. Predictive Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Tools for Elderly: A Meta-Analysis. Western journal of nursing research 2016;38:459–83. doi: 10.1177/0193945915602259
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0193945915602259&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26337859&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

59. 59.Tayyib NAH, Coyer F, Lewis P. Pressure ulcers in the adult intensive care unit: a literature review of patient risk factors and risk assessment scales. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice 2013;3(11):28–42.
    
    

60. 60.Wang N, Lv L, Yan F, et al. Biomarkers for the early detection of pressure injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Tissue Viability 2022;31:259–67. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2022.02.005
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jtv.2022.02.005&link_type=DOI) 

61. 61.Zhang Y, Zhuang Y, Shen J, et al. Value of pressure injury assessment scales for patients in the intensive care unit: Systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis. Intensive & critical care nursing 2021;64:103009. doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2020.103009
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.iccn.2020.103009&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

62. 62.Zimmermann GS, Cremasco MF, Zanei SSV, et al. Pressure injury risk prediction in critical care patients: an integrative review. Texto & Contexto-Enfermagem 2018;27(3)
    
    

63. 63.Gaspar S, Peralta M, Marques A, et al. Effectiveness on hospital-acquired pressure ulcers prevention: a systematic review. International Wound Journal 2019;16(5):1087–102. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13147
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/iwj.13147&link_type=DOI) 

64. 64.Ontario HQ. Pressure ulcer prevention: an evidence-based analysis. Ontario health technology assessment series 2009;9(2):1–104.
    
    

65. 65.Kottner J, Dassen T, Tannen A. Inter- and intrarater reliability of the Waterlow pressure sore risk scale: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2009;46:369–79. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.09.010
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.09.010&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18986650&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

66. 66.Lovegrove J, Ven S, Miles SJ, et al. Comparison of pressure injury risk assessment outcomes using a structured assessment tool versus clinical judgement: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2021 doi: 10.1111/jocn.16154 [published Online First: 2021/12/01]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/jocn.16154&link_type=DOI) 

67. 67.Lovegrove J, Miles S, Fulbrook P. The relationship between pressure ulcer risk assessment and preventative interventions: a systematic review. Journal of wound care 2018;27(12):862–75.
    
    

68. 68.Moore ZEH, Patton D. Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006471.pub4
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/14651858.CD006471.pub4&link_type=DOI) 

69. 69.Page KN, Barker AL, Kamar J. Development and validation of a pressure ulcer risk assessment tool for acute hospital patients. Wound Repair and Regeneration 2011;19(1):31–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2010.00647.x
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1524-475X.2010.00647.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21134037&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

70. 70.Berlowitz DR, Ash AS, Brandeis GH, et al. Rating long-term care facilities on pressure ulcer development: Importance of case-mix adjustment. Annals of Internal Medicine 1996;124(6):557–63. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-124-6-199603150-00003
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-124-6-199603150-00003&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8597318&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996TZ52900003&link_type=ISI) 

71. 71.Berlowitz DR, Brandeis GH, Morris JN, et al. Deriving a risk-adjustment model for pressure ulcer development using the Minimum Data Set. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2001;49(7):866-71. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49175.x
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49175.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11527476&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000170332700003&link_type=ISI) 

72. 72.Poss J, Murphy KM, Woodbury MG, et al. Development of the interRAI Pressure Ulcer Risk Scale (PURS) for use in long-term care and home care settings. BMC geriatrics 2010;10:67. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-10-67
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2318-10-67&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20854670&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

73. 73.Compton F, Hoffmann F, Hortig T, et al. Pressure ulcer predictors in ICU patients: nursing skin assessment versus objective parameters. J Wound Care 2008;17(10):417–20, 22-4. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2008.17.10.31304
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.12968/jowc.2008.17.10.31304&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18947019&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

74. 74.Lowery MT. A pressure sore risk calculator for intensive care patients: ’the Sunderland experience’. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 1995;11(6):344–53. doi: 10.1016/s0964-3397(95)80452-8
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/s0964-3397(95)80452-8&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8574087&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

75. 75.Baldwin KM, Ziegler SM. Pressure ulcer risk following critical traumatic injury. Advances in wound care : the journal for prevention and healing 1998;11(4):168–73.
    
    

76. 76.Bergquist S. Subscales, subscores, or summative score: evaluating the contribution of Braden Scale items for predicting pressure ulcer risk in older adults receiving home health care. *Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound*, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society 2001;28(6):279–89. doi: 10.1067/mjw.2001.119012
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1067/mjw.2001.119012&link_type=DOI) 

77. 77.Song M, Choi KS. Factors predicting development of decubitus ulcers among patients admitted for neurological problems. The Journal of Nurses Academic Society 1991;21(1):16–26.
    
    

78. 78.Halfens R, Van Achterberg T, Bal R. Validity and reliability of the Braden scale and the influence of other risk factors: a multi-centre prospective study. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2000;37(4):313–19.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0020-7489(00)00010-9&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10760538&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

79. 79.Choi KS, Song MS. Test of predictive validity for the new pressure risk assessment scale. Journal of Korean Academy of Adult Nursing 1991;3(1):19–28.
    
    

80. 80.Kwong E, Pang S, Wong T, et al. Predicting pressure ulcer risk with the modified Braden, Braden, and Norton scales in acute care hospitals in Mainland China. Appl Nurs Res 2005;18(2):122–8. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2005.01.001
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.apnr.2005.01.001&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15991112&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000230365700013&link_type=ISI) 

81. 81.Pang SM, Wong TK. Predicting pressure sore risk with the Norton, Braden, and Waterlow scales in a Hong Kong rehabilitation hospital. Nursing Research 1998;47(3):147-53.
    
    

82. 82.Schue RM, Langemo DK. Pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence and a modification of the Braden Scale for a rehabilitation unit. *Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound*, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society 1998;25(1):36–43. doi: 10.1016/s1071-5754(98)90011-0
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/s1071-5754(98)90011-0&link_type=DOI) 

83. 83.Austin PC, Steyerberg EW. Events per variable (EPV) and the relative performance of different strategies for estimating the out-of-sample validity of logistic regression models. Stat Methods Med Res 2017;26(2):796–808. doi: 10.1177/0962280214558972 [published Online First: 2014/11/19]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0962280214558972&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25411322&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

84. 84.Smith GC, Seaman SR, Wood AM, et al. Correcting for optimistic prediction in small data sets. Am J Epidemiol 2014;180(3):318-24. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu140 [published Online First: 2014/06/24]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwu140&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24966219&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000340432800012&link_type=ISI) 

85. 85.Ramspek CL, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, et al. External validation of prognostic models: what, why, how, when and where? Clin Kidney J 2021;14(1):49–58. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfaa188 [published Online First: 2020/11/24]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ckj/sfaa188&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33564405&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

86. 86.de Hond AAH, Shah VB, Kant IMJ, et al. Perspectives on validation of clinical predictive algorithms. npj Digital Medicine 2023;6(1):86. doi: 10.1038/s41746-023-00832-9
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41746-023-00832-9&link_type=DOI) 

87. 87.Binuya MAE, Engelhardt EG, Schats W, et al. Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2022;22(1):316. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01801-8 [published Online First: 2022/12/12]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12874-022-01801-8&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=36510134&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

88. 88.Qaseem A, Mir TP, Starkey M, et al. Risk Assessment and Prevention of Pressure Ulcers: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine 2015;162(5):359–69. doi: 10.7326/m14-1567
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M14-1567&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25732278&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

89. 89.Pei J, Guo X, Tao H, et al. Machine learning-based prediction models for pressure injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Wound J 2023 doi: 10.1111/iwj.14280 [published Online First: 2023/06/20]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/iwj.14280&link_type=DOI) 

90. 90.Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ 2015;351:h5527. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h5527 [published Online First: 2015/10/28]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1136/bmj.h5527&link_type=DOI) 

91. 91.Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2015;162(1):W1–73. doi: 10.7326/m14-0698
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/m14-0698&link_type=DOI) 

92. 92.Hernandez-Boussard T, Bozkurt S, Ioannidis JPA, et al. MINIMAR (MINimum Information for Medical AI Reporting): Developing reporting standards for artificial intelligence in health care. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2020;27(12):2011–15. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa088
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jamia/ocaa088&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F08%2F2024.05.07.24306999.atom) 

93. 93.Collins G, Dhiman P, Logullo P, et al. TRIPOD+AI. OSF, 2023.