==== Front Medicine (Baltimore) Medicine (Baltimore) MEDI Medicine 0025-7974 1536-5964 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Hagerstown, MD 33235056 MD-D-20-08230 10.1097/MD.0000000000022348 22348 3700 Research Article Study Protocol Systematic Review The prevalence and incidence of community-acquired pressure injury A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysisChen Geng MNa Lin Lv MNb Yan-Lin Yang MNa Loretta Chung Yuet-Foon PhDa Han Lin PhDac∗ a Evidence-based Nursing Center, School of Nursing, Lanzhou University b Wound Ostomy Care Center c Department of Nursing, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China. ∗ Correspondence: Lin Han, School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, #28 Yanxi Road, Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China, Department of Nursing, Gansu Provincial Hospital, #204 Donggang Road, Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China (e-mail: LZU-hanlin@hotmail.com‘). 25 11 2020 25 11 2020 99 48 e2234824 8 2020 26 8 2020 Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.2020This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0Abstract Background: Pressure injury (PI) is a serious problem in health care settings globally. It leads to tremendous burden both individuals and healthcare systems. Since 2008, hospital-acquired pressure injuries have been a major focus of nursing quality improvement programs within hospitals and are considered never events. However, insufficiency attention has been paid to community-acquired pressure injuries (CAPI) or pressure ulcers that occur at home or in nursing homes. The prevalence or incidence of community-acquired pressure injury has been reported but never been synthesized in a meta-analysis manner. To fill the gaps in the evidence matrix, the aims of this study are to estimate the prevalence of CAPI in the general population and to pool the overall incidence of CAPI in the general population. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINHAL, the Cochrane Library, Chongqing VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were electronically searched to identify eligible studies updated to May 2020 to collect studies on the prevalence or incidence of community-acquired pressure injuries. Two reviewers independently will screen the literature, extracted data, and assess the risk of bias of included studies using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline. Meta-analyses of pooled weighted estimates will be calculated using random effect models with 95% CIs reported due to high heterogeneity. Results: Of the 5242 studies initially identified, of the 22 studies (total 479,761 participants) 17 reporting prevalence of community-acquired pressure injury and 5 reporting incidence were included. Other results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Conclusion: This study will summarize the pooled estimate prevalence and incidence of community-acquired pressure injuries and the pooled estimate of frequencies of different anatomic sites. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval and patient consent are not required, because this study is a meta-analysis based on published studies. INPLASY registration number: INPLASY202080044 Keywords community-acquired pressure injuryincidencemeta-analysisprevalenceNational Natural Science Foundation of China71663002Lin HanGansu Provincial Hospital National Scientific Research Project Cultivation Plan19SYPYA-4Lin HanOPEN-ACCESSTRUECOUNTRYUNITED STATES ==== Body 1 Introduction Pressure injury (PI) is a serious problem in health care settings globally and it affects the health of more than 7 million people worldwide.[1] Pressure injury is a localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue, usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device and it is the result of intense and/or prolonged pressure or pressure in combination with shear.[2] It leads to tremendous burden both individuals and healthcare systems.[3] For instance, PI causes considerable patient suffering from pain,[4] affects the patient's quality of life emotionally, physically, and socially,[5,6] and even increases patient's risk of death.[7] In addition, PI leads to an economic burden on health care systems such as it carries an estimated annual cost of $11 billion (US $).[1,8] Since 2008, hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPI) have been a major focus of nursing quality improvement programs within hospitals and are considered never events.[9] In the last few decades, pressure injury studies have mainly focused on HAPI. Systematic review studies show a wide range of PU prevalence rates among hospitalized patients: 3.1% to 30.0% in the United States, 1% to 54% in Europe, 6% in Australia, and 2.7% to 16.8% in Asia.[10,11] Various preventive measures and treatments have been implemented in hospitals to reduce the prevalence of PI around the world.[12] However, insufficiency attention has been paid to community-acquired pressure injuries (CAPI) or pressure ulcers that occur at home or in nursing homes. In many cases, PI has already been developed prior to hospital admission.[13–15] A study executed in New England (n = 1022) addresses that 70.6% of the patients who already had PI before hospital admission were living at home before entering acute care hospital, and only 21.4% were receiving home care services prior to admission.[14] Other studies have shown that the prevalence of community-acquired PI ranged from 3.3% to 11.1%.[13,15–17] The prevalence or incidence of community-acquired pressure injury has been reported but never been synthesized in a meta-analysis manner. To fill the gaps in the evidence matrix, we conducted a systematic review to retrieve epidemiological studies that reported the prevalence or incidence of CAPI. The aims of this study are to estimate the prevalence of CAPI in the general population and to pool the overall incidence of CAPI in the general population. 2 Methods We have registered the protocol on the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY), and the registration number was INPLASY202080044. This systematic review will be conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.[18] 2.1 Eligibility criteria 2.1.1 Types of patients General population will be included. There will also be no restrictions based on other conditions, such as age, gender. 2.1.2 Types of studies We will consider observational studies such as cohort, case control, and cross-sectional study. 2.1.3 Types of PI PI diagnostic criteria according to NPUAP and there is no limit to the stage of PIs. PI should occur in non-hospital settings such as communities, nursing homes, and so on. 2.1.4 Types of outcome measures The primary outcomes are prevalence or incidence of CAPI in the general population. 2.2 Search methods and the identification of studies 2.2.1 Electronic searches Seven electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINHAL, the Cochrane Library, Chongqing VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were systematically searched by the first author (CG) for all studies published from the earliest record to May 2, 2020 reporting the prevalence or incidence of community-acquired pressure injury among general population. The search terms were combinations of epidemiology (prevalence, incidence, or epidemiology), PI (pressure injury or pressure ulcer), and community-acquired (community, home, nursing home, residence home, long-term care center, or rehabilitation center) in forms of free words or controlled vocabulary (i.e., medical subject headings). There were no time or language limitations. The specific search strategies for PubMed bibliographic database are listed in Table 1. And the flow chart of searching and screening studies is shown at Figure 1 Table 1 Search strategy used in the PubMed database. Search number Search term #1 (((((((((pressure ulcer∗) OR pressure injury) OR pressure sore∗) OR pressure damage) OR decubitus ulcer)) OR “Pressure Ulcer”[Mesh])) #2 ((“Community-Acquired Infections”[Mesh]) OR (((((((Community-acquired) OR community) OR nursing home∗) OR home) OR long-term care) OR residence home∗) OR rehabilitation center∗))) #3 ((((“Prevalence”[Mesh] OR “epidemiology” [Subheading]) OR “Incidence”[Mesh])) OR (((((prevalence) OR incidence) OR frequency) OR occurrence) OR rate)) #4 #1 AND #2 AND #3 Figure 1 Flow chart of searching and screening studies. 2.2.2 Searching other resources In addition, we were also searched for dissertations and gray literature to identify systematic reviewers or clinical trials related to prevalence or incidence of CAPI. Besides, related journals and conference processes will be manually searched. 2.3 Data collection and analysis 2.3.1 Selection of studies and data extraction Initial search records will be imported into ENDNOTE X9 literature management software, then the titles and abstracts of records will be screened to identify potential trials according to eligibility criteria. Next, full-text versions of all potentially relevant trials will be obtained and reviewed to ensure eligibility. A standard data extraction form will be created using Microsoft Excel 2013 to collect data of relevant information, including study characteristics (author[s], year of publication, study setting, year of investigation, study design, sampling method, assessment and diagnosis of PI) and data on prevalence (sample size and number of cases) or incidence (sample at risk and number of new cases). In addition, to locate potentially relevant studies that had been omitted the researchers screened the reference lists of the identified articles. Authors will be contacted if further information was needed. Study selection and data extraction will be performed by 1 reviewer (GC), and will be checked by other reviewers (YYL, LL). Any conflicts will be resolved by discussion. 2.3.2 Assessment of risk of bias The quality of included studies will be assessed by using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.[19] The assessment included 5 modules, namely, sample population, sample size, participation rate, outcome assessment, and analytical methods. Each module was graded as with high risk and unclear (score 0), moderate risk (score 1), or low risk (score 2) (see Table 2). The overall bias risk of each study will be represented by the total score of the 5 modules. Table 2 Quality score scale for assessing the risk of bias. Bias type Low risk (score = 2) Moderate risk (score = 1) High risk (score = 0) Selection (sample population) Sample from general population, not a select group; consecutive unselected population; rationale for case and control selection explained Sample selected from large population but selection criteria not defined; sample selection ambiguous but may be representative; rationale for cases and controls not explained; eligibility criteria not explained; analysis to adjust for sampling strategy bias. Highly select population making it difficult to generalize finding; sample selection ambiguous and sample unlikely to be representative. Selection (sample size) Sample size calculation performed and adequate Sample size calculation performed and reasons for not meeting sample size given; sample size calculation not performed but all eligible persons studied. Sample size estimation unclear or only subsample studied. Selection (participation rate) High response rate (>85%). Moderate response rate (70–85%). Low response rate (<70%); response rate not reported. Performance bias (outcome assessment) Diagnosis using consistent criteria and direct examination. Assessment from administrative database or register; assessment from hospital record or interviewer Assessment from nonvalidated data or generic estimate from the overall population Performance bias (analytical methods to control for bias) Analysis appropriate for the type of sample (subgroup analysis/regression etc.) Analysis does not account for common adjustment Data confusing Two reviewers (GC and YYL) will independently assess the risk of bias for each study as low, moderate, or high using the STROBE. All disagreements in the review stage and data extraction process will be resolved by consensus through discussion. 2.3.3 Statistical analysis Before pooling prevalence estimates of CAPI, we will first assess the heterogeneity among studies using the Cochran's Q statistic and I2 index (the proportion of total variability due to true between-study heterogeneity beyond chance).[20–22] A random-effects meta-analysis will be employed a priority throughout this study because of inherent variations between study characteristics (e.g., investigated sample, study design, and study location). All statistical analyses will be conducted with STATA version 12.0. A P value of less than .05 indicated statistical significance. The subgroup analysis will be performed to investigate the possible sources of heterogeneity according to the stage of PIs, different regions, and different setting. The influence of a single study will be checked by a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis.[23,24] We also will examine publication bias by visual inspection of funnel plots, Egger regression test for funnel plot asymmetry, and Begg rank correlation test.[25–27] The prevalence of pressure injury will be calculated as the number of patients with pressure injury divided by the total number of inpatients on the ward. The incidence of pressure injury will be calculated as the number of patients with pressure ulcers that newly developed over the past month divided by the total number of inpatients. 3 Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis protocol for integrating the incidence and prevalence of community-acquired pressure ulcers in various countries and regions around the world. This study will integrate and compare the prevalence or incidence of pressure injuries in different regions and places, hoping that health care providers will pay more attention to the community-acquired pressure injury, and take timely targeted treatment measures. This protocol is designed in adherence to guidelines for meta-analysis protocols and will be conducted and reported strictly according to the PRISMA extension statement for network meta-analysis. Acknowledgments The authors are grateful for the helpful reviewer comments on this paper. Author contributions Chen Geng, Lin Lv and Lin Han tested the feasibility of the study. Chen Geng, Lin Lv wrote the manuscript; all authors approved the final version of the manuscript. Chen Geng, Lin Lv, Loretta Yuet-Foon Chung, Yanlin Yang and Lin Han provided methodological advice, polished, and revised the manuscript. Chen Geng, Lin Lv: plan and design the research. Conceptualization: Chen Geng. Data curation: Chen Geng, Lin Lv. Formal analysis: Chen Geng. Investigation: Lin Han. Methodology: Chen Geng, Lin Lv, Yanlin Yang and Lin Han. Resources: Chen Geng, Lin Lv, Loretta Yuet-Foon Chung. Software: Chen Geng, Yanlin Yang. Supervision: Lin Lv, Lin Han. Validation: Loretta Yuet-Foon Chung and Yanlin Yang Writing – original draft: Chen Geng, Lin Lv. Writing – review & editing: Lin Lv, Loretta Yuet-Foon Chung and Lin Han. Abbreviations: CAPI = community-acquired pressure injuries, HAPI = hospital-acquired pressure injuries, NPUAP = the national pressure ulcer advisory panel, PI = pressure injury, STROBE = Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline. How to cite this article: Chen G, Lin L, Yan-Lin Y, Loretta CF, Han L. The prevalence and incidence of community-acquired pressure injury: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2020;00 (00). Ethical approval and patient consent are not required since this is a network meta-analysis based on published studies. The results of this meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. CG and LL contributed equally to this work. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number: 71663002) and the Gansu Provincial Hospital National Scientific Research Project Cultivation Plan (grant number: 19SYPYA-4). The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are publicly available. ==== Refs References [1] Sen CK Gordillo GM Roy S Human skin wounds: a major and snowballing threat to public health and the economy . Wound Repair Regen 2009 ;17 :763 –71 .19903300 [2] Haesler E, ed. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline. Osborne Park, Western Australia: Cambridge Media; 2014. [3] Ness SJ Hickling DF Bell JJ The pressures of obesity: the relationship between obesity, malnutrition and pressure injuries in hospital inpatients . Clin Nutr 2018 ;37 :1569 –74 .28890276 [4] Briggs M Collinson M Wilson L The prevalence of pain at pressure areas and pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients . BMC Nurs 2013 ;12 :19 Published 2013 Jul 31 .23902583 [5] Gorecki C Brown JM Nelson EA On behalf of the European Quality of Life Pressure Ulcer Project. Impact of pressure ulcers on quality of life in older patients: a systematic review . J Am Geriatr Soc 2009 ;57 :1175 –83 .19486198 [6] Esson L Inpatients felt that pressure ulcers had emotional, mental, physical, and social effects on quality of life because nurses did not adequately treat or manage their pain or discomfort . Evid Based Nurs 2007 ;10 :128 .17905780 [7] Jaul E Calderon-Margalit R Systemic factors and mortality in elderly patients with pressure ulcers . Int Wound J 2015 ;12 :254 –9 .23692122 [8] Kandilov AM Coomer NM Dalton K The impact of hospital-acquired conditions on Medicare program payments . Medicare Medicaid Res Rev 2014 ;4 :mmrr2014-004-04-a01 Published 2014 Oct 29 . [9] Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Medicare program: changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 2009 rates; payments for graduate medical education in certain emergency situations; changes to disclosure of physician ownership in hospitals and physician self-referral rules; updates to the long-term care prospective payment system; updates to certain IPPS-excluded hospitals; and collection of information regarding financial relationships between hospitals . Final Rules Federal register 2008 ;73 :48433 .18956499 [10] Hahnel E Lichterfeld A Blume-Peytavi U The epidemiology of skin conditions in the aged: a systematic review . J Tissue Viability 2017 ;26 :20 –8 .27161662 [11] Tubaishat A Papanikolaou P Anthony D Pressure ulcers prevalence in the acute care setting: a systematic review, 2000–2015 . Clin Nurs Res 2018 ;27 :643 –59 .28447852 [12] van Leen MWF Schols JM Hovius SE A secondary analysis of longitudinal prevalence data to determine the use of pressure ulcer preventive measures in Dutch nursing homes, 2005–2014 . Ostomy Wound Manage 2017 ;63 :10 –20 . [13] Rodrigues I Mégie M-F Prevalence of chronic wounds in Quebec home care: an exploratory study . Ostomy Wound Manage 2006 ;52 :46 –8 . [14] Corbett LQ Funk M Fortunato G Pressure injury in a community population . J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2017 ;44 :221 –7 .28328647 [15] Khor HM Tan J Saedon NI Determinants of mortality among older adults with pressure ulcers . Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2014 ;59 :536 –41 .25091603 [16] Gunningberg L Stotts NA Idvall E Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers in two Swedish County Councils: cross-sectional data as the foundation for future quality improvement . Int Wound J 2011 ;8 :465 –73 .21722316 [17] Panfil EM Mayer H Junge W Wound management in patients with chronic wounds in ambulatory nursing—a pilot study . Pflege 2002 ;15 :169 –76 .12244826 [18] Moher D Liberati A Tetzlaff J Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement . Ann Int Med 2009 ;151 :264 –9 .19622511 [19] Von Elm E Altman DG Egger M The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies . Lancet 2007 ;370 :1453 –7 .18064739 [20] Higgins JPT Thompson SG Deeks JJ Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses . BMJ 2003 ;327 :557 –60 .12958120 [21] Higgins JP Thompson SG Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis . Stat Med 2002 ;21 :1539 –58 .12111919 [22] Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1. 0 [updated March 2011] 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration (2018). [23] Song P Yu J Chan KY Prevalence, risk factors and burden of diabetic retinopathy in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis . J Glob Health 2018 ;8 :010803 .29899983 [24] Wallace BC Schmid CH Lau J Meta-Analyst: software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data . BMC Med Res Methodol 2009 ;9 :80 Published 2009 Dec 4 .19961608 [25] Egger M Davey Smith G Schneider M Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test . BMJ 1997 ;315 :629 –34 .9310563 [26] Begg CB Mazumdar M Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias . Biometrics 1994 ;50 :1088 –101 .7786990 [27] Peters JL Sutton AJ Jones DR Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis . JAMA 2006 ;295 :676 –80 .16467236