Advanced search
1 file | 832.70 KB Add to list

Measurement properties of classifications for skin tears: A systematic review

Author
Organization
Abstract
Background: Skin tear classifications support the assessment and reporting of skin tears in a consistent way. The measurement properties of skin tear classifications have not been compared so far. Objectives: To critically appraise, compare and summarise the quality of the measurement properties of available skin tear classifications. Design: Systematic review. Methods: The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were systematically searched until January 2020. Studies reporting the development and/or the evaluation of measurement properties of skin tear classifications were included. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was applied to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Each reported measurement property was rated against criteria for good measurement properties. The evidence was summarised and the quality of the evidence was graded using a modified GRADE approach. Study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted independently by two reviewers and double-checked by a third reviewer. Results: Fourteen studies, describing five classifications, were included. Content validity was examined in five studies, reliability in nine studies, measurement error in two studies, and criterion validity in four studies. For three classification systems, no measurement properties were reported. Conclusions: Five skin tear classifications exist, of which only two have been psychometrically tested. The quality of evidence on their measurement properties varied between very low to moderate. To date, the ISTAP classification is the most commonly evaluated system with moderate quality evidence to support its reliability, measurement error and criterion validity. More well-designed studies using direct skin observations are needed.
Keywords
Classification, Measurement properties, Reliability, Skin tear, Systematic review, Validity

Downloads

  • Published article 13072020.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 832.70 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Van Tiggelen, Hanne, et al. “Measurement Properties of Classifications for Skin Tears: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2020, doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103694.
APA
Van Tiggelen, H., Kottner, J., Campbell, K., LeBlanc, K., Woo, K., Verhaeghe, S., … Beeckman, D. (2020). Measurement properties of classifications for skin tears: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103694
Chicago author-date
Van Tiggelen, Hanne, Jan Kottner, Karen Campbell, Kimberly LeBlanc, Kevin Woo, Sofie Verhaeghe, Ann Van Hecke, and Dimitri Beeckman. 2020. “Measurement Properties of Classifications for Skin Tears: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Nursing Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103694.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Van Tiggelen, Hanne, Jan Kottner, Karen Campbell, Kimberly LeBlanc, Kevin Woo, Sofie Verhaeghe, Ann Van Hecke, and Dimitri Beeckman. 2020. “Measurement Properties of Classifications for Skin Tears: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Nursing Studies. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103694.
Vancouver
1.
Van Tiggelen H, Kottner J, Campbell K, LeBlanc K, Woo K, Verhaeghe S, et al. Measurement properties of classifications for skin tears: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2020;
IEEE
[1]
H. Van Tiggelen et al., “Measurement properties of classifications for skin tears: A systematic review,” International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2020.
@article{8668960,
  abstract     = {Background: Skin tear classifications support the assessment and reporting of skin tears in a consistent way. The measurement properties of skin tear classifications have not been compared so far.
Objectives: To critically appraise, compare and summarise the quality of the measurement properties of available skin tear classifications.
Design: Systematic review.
Methods: The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were systematically searched until January 2020. Studies reporting the development and/or the evaluation of measurement properties of skin tear classifications were included. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was applied to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Each reported measurement property was rated against criteria for good measurement properties. The evidence was summarised and the quality of the evidence was graded using a modified GRADE approach. Study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted independently by two reviewers and double-checked by a third reviewer. 
Results: Fourteen studies, describing five classifications, were included. Content validity was examined in five studies, reliability in nine studies, measurement error in two studies, and criterion validity in four studies. For three classification systems, no measurement properties were reported.
Conclusions: Five skin tear classifications exist, of which only two have been psychometrically tested. The quality of evidence on their measurement properties varied between very low to moderate. To date, the ISTAP classification is the most commonly evaluated system with moderate quality evidence to support its reliability, measurement error and criterion validity. More well-designed studies using direct skin observations are needed.},
  articleno    = {103694},
  author       = {Van Tiggelen, Hanne and Kottner, Jan and Campbell, Karen and LeBlanc, Kimberly and Woo, Kevin and Verhaeghe, Sofie and Van Hecke, Ann and Beeckman, Dimitri},
  issn         = {0020-7489},
  journal      = {International Journal of Nursing Studies},
  keywords     = {Classification,Measurement properties,Reliability,Skin tear,Systematic review,Validity},
  language     = {eng},
  title        = {Measurement properties of classifications for skin tears: A systematic review},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103694},
  year         = {2020},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric