Validity and reliability of a pressure ulcer monitoring tool for persons with spinal cord impairment

References

• Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine. Pressure ulcer prevention and treatment following spinal cord injury. A clinical practice guideline for health-care professionals. Washington, DC: Paralyzed Veterans of America; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Cuddigan J, Berlowitz DR, Ayello EA. 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(4):208–15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Henzel MK, Bogie KM, Guihan M, Ho CH. Pressure ulcer management and research priorities for patients with spinal cord injury: consensus opinion from SCI QUERI expert panel on pressure ulcer research implementation. J Rehabil Res Dev 2011;48(3):xi–xxxii.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel & European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: clinical practice guideline. Washington (DC): National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Thomason SS, Evitt CP, Harrow JJ, Love L, Moore DH, Mullins MA, et al. Providers’ perceptions of spinal cord injury pressure ulcer guidelines. J Spinal Cord Med 2007;30(2):117–26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullins M, Thomason SS, Legro M. Monitoring pressure ulcer healing in persons with disabilities. Rehabil Nurs 2005;30(3):92–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maklebust J. PUSH Tool reality check: audience response. Adv Wound Care 1997;10(5):102–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Krasner DL, Rodeheaver GT, Sibbald RG. Chronic wound care: a clinical source book for healthcare professionals. 4th ed. Malvern, PA: HMP Communications; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Bates-Jensen BM. Indices to include in wound healing assessment. Adv Wound Care 1995;8(4):25–33.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bates-Jensen B, Guihan M, Chin AS, Garber SL, Burns SP. Characteristics of recurrent pressure ulcers in veterans with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Inj 2009;32(1):34–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas DR, Rodeheaver GT, Bartolucci AA, Franz RA, Sussman C, Ferrell BA, et al. Pressure ulcer scale for healing: derivation and validation of the PUSH tool. Adv Wound Care 1997;10(5):96–101.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stotts NA, Rodeheaver GT, Thomas DR, Frantz RA, Bartolucci AA, Sussman C, et al. An instrument to measure healing in pressure ulcers: development and validation of the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH). J Gerontol Med Sci 2001;56(12):M795–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Günes UY. A prospective study evaluating the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH tool) to assess stage II, stage III, and stage IV pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage 2009;55(5):48–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates-Jensen BM. The Pressure Sore Status Tool a few thousand assessments later. Adv Wound Care 1997;10(5):65–73.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harris C, Bates-Jensen B, Parslow N, Raizman R, Singh M, Ketchen R. Bates-Jensen Wound Assessment Tool: pictorial guide validation project. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2010;37(3):253–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates-Jensen BM. Toward an intelligent wound assessment system. Ostomy Wound Manage 1995;41( Suppl 7A):80–6.
   Google Scholar
• Bates-Jensen BM, Vredevoe DL, Brecht M. Validity and reliability of the Pressure Sore Status Tool. Decubitus 1992;5(6):20–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pillen H, Miller M, Thomas J, Puckridge P, Sandison S, Spark JI. Assessment of wound healing: validity, reliability and sensitivity of available instruments. Wound Practice Res 2009;17(4):208–17.
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez GP, Claus-Walker J. Biomechanical changes to skin composition in spinal cord injury: a possible contribution to decubitus ulcers. Paraplegia 1988;26(5):302–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86(2):420–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szklo M, Nieto FJ. Epidemiology: beyond the basics. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory, 3rd addition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• VeV MD Medical Documentation. c/o Vistamedical, Unit #3 – 55 Henlow Bay, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada [cited 2009]. Available from: http://www.woundmeasurement.ws/
   Google Scholar
• Haghpanah S, Bogie K, Wang X, Banks PG, Ho CH. Reliability of electronic versus manual wound measurement techniques. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2006;87(10):1396–402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagan KM, Dusoir AE, McDonough SM, Baxter GD. Wound measurement: the comparative reliability of direct versus photographic tracings analyzed by planimetry versus digitizing techniques. Arch Phy Med Rehab 2000;81(8):1110–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langemo DK, Melland H, Hanson D, Olson B, Hunter S, Henly SJ. Two-dimensional wound measurement: comparison of 4 techniques. Adv Wound Care 1998;11(7):337–43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ. Modeled variance in two-level models. Social Methods Res 1994;22(3):342–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Recchia A. R-squared measures for two-level hierarchical linear models using SAS. J Stat Software 2010;32: Code Snippet 2. Available from: http://www.jstatsoft.org/
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McGovern S, Hernandez F, Tomlinson S, Monteso-Smithson O, Smith LC. Challenging role of the data collector in a SCI research study on pressure ulcer healing. SCI Nurs 2009;26:10–6.
   Google Scholar