Summary
The article “Predictive validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment tools for elderly” is focused on risk assessment tools for pressure ulcer prevention for elderly populations. It provides a meta-analysis of 29 studies that utilized three pressure ulcer risk assessment tools such as Braden, Norton, and Waterlow scales. The article is focused on determining the predictive validities of pressure ulcer risks. The results showcased that all three scales indicated a moderate level of accuracy with 80% variability between them. Braden Scale had five unique cut-off points which were the primary cause of heterogeneity. The article concludes that the examined tools of pressure ulcer risk assessment are limited in their validity and accuracy when applied to older adults due to this heterogeneity present in the study (Park, Lee, & Kwon, 2016).
Balance
The article presents an analysis of almost thirty studies which cover three main pressure ulcer risk assessment tools. All three tools are examined with equal attention, and the analysis of articles shows no sign of bias towards any specific tool or study. The danger of bias in this context could lead to a specific tool being selected as the most accurate and with the overall lack of positive results presented by the authors about any of the examined tools. The author also pays close attention to the validity of the articles themselves, the way in which they were selected is meticulous and designed in such a way that only the most relevant articles with strong evidence were selected. Overall, the authors made sure to maintain an unbiased attitude toward the examined material, and the results indicate that there was no bias toward any of the examined pressure ulcer risk awareness tools (Park et al., 2016).
Quality
The article exhibits a relatively high level of quality due to a number of factors. The research carried out by the authors is thorough, which is indicated by the high number of articles selected by them despite the very niche topic of the research. The method of meta-analysis and systematic analysis is performed in detail, and the results are supported by a lot of valid and relevant outside sources. The data itself is presented clearly and appears to be technically correct. The authors could have given more attention to the unique elements of elderly healthcare and why the examined pressure ulcer risk assessment tools are not seen as accurate and valid by the authors.
Nevertheless, the analysis is presented in a detailed and effective manner, which improves the article dramatically. A follow-up article would present better alternative tools that can be used instead of the ones deemed inaccurate by the results. Overall the article was very convincing due to a good number of articles being chosen by the authors and the quality of their analysis. I found myself agreeing with its argumentation and data analysis. At the end of the paper, I had little doubt that these tools are not effective enough to be used when working with older adults. Initially, I had doubts about the accuracy of these tools due to their general purpose not accounting for the differences in elderly health care (Park et al., 2016).The article supported my initial opinion and presented valid arguments and data to make it more than just a suspicion. The quality of the article is high, and I would like to see more research on this topic.
References
Park, S.-H., Lee, Y.-S., & Kwon, Y.-M. (2016). Predictive validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment tools for elderly: A meta-analysis. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 38(4), 459–483.