Instruments for wound assessment: scoping review
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Research, Society and Development |
Texto Completo: | https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/19246 |
Resumo: | The aim is to identify and describe the main instruments used for wound analysis, in addition to raising their validation and cross-cultural adaptation to the Portuguese language. This is a scope review prepared according to the method proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The Regional Portal of the Virtual Health Library (BVS), MEDLINE (under the Pubmed interface), Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS and Scielo databases were consulted in order to identify studies that used at least one instrument validated for wound assessment by January 2021. Gray literature was verified using Google Scholar. The search strategy was developed using Health Science Descriptors (DeCS) and MeSH terms such as wound healing, assessment study and nursing assessment. Studies were included regardless of the design used, only studies that did not report the use of any instrument for wound assessment, or studies involving preclinical models were excluded. Two reviewers selected the articles independently. The instruments found were described and categorized after the reviewers' calibration. 51 instruments for wound assessment were found in a total of 110 selected studies. These instruments involved different approaches in clinical practice (wound healing, infection, pain caused by the wound, etc.). However, only eight (15.7%) were cross-culturally adapted for use in the Portuguese language. This study suggests that more instruments must be developed and adapted to the Portuguese language of Brazil, so that the diagnosis and treatment of wounds can be more accurate. |
id |
UNIFEI_96ed432f11dbd05b10c54bb8d2983f47 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/19246 |
network_acronym_str |
UNIFEI |
network_name_str |
Research, Society and Development |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Instruments for wound assessment: scoping reviewInstrumentos para la evaluación de heridas: revisión del alcanceInstrumentos para avaliação de feridas: scoping reviewWound HealingWounds and InjuriesEvidence-based practice.Cicatrización de HeridasHeridas y LesionesPráctica clínica basada en la evidencia.CicatrizaçãoFerimentos e lesõesPrática clínica baseada em evidências.The aim is to identify and describe the main instruments used for wound analysis, in addition to raising their validation and cross-cultural adaptation to the Portuguese language. This is a scope review prepared according to the method proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The Regional Portal of the Virtual Health Library (BVS), MEDLINE (under the Pubmed interface), Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS and Scielo databases were consulted in order to identify studies that used at least one instrument validated for wound assessment by January 2021. Gray literature was verified using Google Scholar. The search strategy was developed using Health Science Descriptors (DeCS) and MeSH terms such as wound healing, assessment study and nursing assessment. Studies were included regardless of the design used, only studies that did not report the use of any instrument for wound assessment, or studies involving preclinical models were excluded. Two reviewers selected the articles independently. The instruments found were described and categorized after the reviewers' calibration. 51 instruments for wound assessment were found in a total of 110 selected studies. These instruments involved different approaches in clinical practice (wound healing, infection, pain caused by the wound, etc.). However, only eight (15.7%) were cross-culturally adapted for use in the Portuguese language. This study suggests that more instruments must be developed and adapted to the Portuguese language of Brazil, so that the diagnosis and treatment of wounds can be more accurate.Este estudio buscó identificar y describir los principales instrumentos utilizados para el análisis de heridas, además de elevar su validación y adaptación transcultural a la lengua portuguesa. Se trata de una revisión del alcance preparada según el método propuesto por el Instituto Joanna Briggs. Se consultaron las bases de datos del Portal Regional de la Biblioteca Virtual en Salud (BVS), MEDLINE (bajo la interfaz Pubmed), Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS y Scielo para identificar estudios que utilizaron al menos un instrumento validado para la evaluación de heridas por Enero de 2021. Se verificó la literatura gris utilizando Google Scholar. La estrategia de búsqueda se desarrolló utilizando descriptores de salud (DeCS) y términos MeSH como curación, estudio de evaluación y evaluación de enfermería. Los estudios se incluyeron independientemente del diseño utilizado, solo se excluyeron los estudios que no informaron el uso de ningún instrumento para la evaluación de heridas o los estudios que incluían modelos preclínicos. Dos revisores seleccionaron los artículos de forma independiente. Los instrumentos encontrados fueron descritos y categorizados después de la calibración de los revisores. Se encontraron 51 instrumentos para la evaluación de heridas en un total de 110 estudios seleccionados. Estos instrumentos implicaron diferentes enfoques en la práctica clínica (cicatrización, infección, dolor causado por la herida, etc.). Sin embargo, solo ocho (15,7%) fueron adaptados transculturalmente para su uso en el idioma portugués. Este estudio sugiere que se desarrollen y adapten más instrumentos al idioma portugués de Brasil, para que el diagnóstico y tratamiento de las heridas sea más preciso.Este estudo buscou identificar e descrever os principais instrumentos utilizados para análise de feridas, além de levantar sua validação e adaptação transcultural para a língua portuguesa. Trata-se de uma revisão de escopo elaborada segundo o método proposto pelo Joanna Briggs Institute. As bases de dados Portal Regional da Biblioteca Virtual de Saúde (BVS), MEDLINE (sob a interface do Pubmed), Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS e Scielo foram consultadas a fim de identificar estudos que utilizaram pelo menos um instrumento validado para a avaliação de feridas até janeiro de 2021. A literatura cinzenta foi verificada através do Google Scholar. A estratégia de busca foi desenvolvida utilizando Descritores em Saúde (DeCS) e termos MeSH como cicatrização, estudo de avaliação e avaliação em enfermagem. Os estudos foram incluídos independente do desenho utilizado, apenas estudos que não relatassem o uso de algum instrumento para avaliação de feridas, ou estudos envolvendo modelos pré-clínicos foram excluídos. Dois revisores selecionaram os artigos de forma independente. Os instrumentos encontrados foram descritos e categorizados após a calibração dos revisores. 51 instrumentos para avaliação de feridas foram encontrados em um total de 110 estudos selecionados. Esses instrumentos envolveram diferentes abordagens na prática clínica (cicatrização, infecção, dor provocada pela ferida, etc). No entanto, apenas oito (15,7%) foram adaptados transculturalmente para utilização na língua portuguesa. Este estudo sugere que mais instrumentos sejam desenvolvidos e adaptados para a língua portuguesa do Brasil, a fim de que o diagnóstico e tratamento de feridas possam ser mais precisos.Research, Society and Development2021-08-25info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/1924610.33448/rsd-v10i11.19246Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 No. 11; e144101119246Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 Núm. 11; e144101119246Research, Society and Development; v. 10 n. 11; e1441011192462525-3409reponame:Research, Society and Developmentinstname:Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)instacron:UNIFEIporhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/19246/17350Copyright (c) 2021 Camila Castanho Cardinelli; Luis Phillipe Nagem Lopes; Karina Chamma Di Piero; Zaida Maria Faria de Freitashttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCardinelli, Camila Castanho Lopes, Luis Phillipe Nagem Di Piero, Karina Chamma Freitas, Zaida Maria Faria de 2021-10-23T19:01:11Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/19246Revistahttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/indexPUBhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/oairsd.articles@gmail.com2525-34092525-3409opendoar:2024-01-17T09:39:10.963353Research, Society and Development - Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Instruments for wound assessment: scoping review Instrumentos para la evaluación de heridas: revisión del alcance Instrumentos para avaliação de feridas: scoping review |
title |
Instruments for wound assessment: scoping review |
spellingShingle |
Instruments for wound assessment: scoping review Cardinelli, Camila Castanho Wound Healing Wounds and Injuries Evidence-based practice. Cicatrización de Heridas Heridas y Lesiones Práctica clínica basada en la evidencia. Cicatrização Ferimentos e lesões Prática clínica baseada em evidências. |
title_short |
Instruments for wound assessment: scoping review |
title_full |
Instruments for wound assessment: scoping review |
title_fullStr |
Instruments for wound assessment: scoping review |
title_full_unstemmed |
Instruments for wound assessment: scoping review |
title_sort |
Instruments for wound assessment: scoping review |
author |
Cardinelli, Camila Castanho |
author_facet |
Cardinelli, Camila Castanho Lopes, Luis Phillipe Nagem Di Piero, Karina Chamma Freitas, Zaida Maria Faria de |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Lopes, Luis Phillipe Nagem Di Piero, Karina Chamma Freitas, Zaida Maria Faria de |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Cardinelli, Camila Castanho Lopes, Luis Phillipe Nagem Di Piero, Karina Chamma Freitas, Zaida Maria Faria de |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Wound Healing Wounds and Injuries Evidence-based practice. Cicatrización de Heridas Heridas y Lesiones Práctica clínica basada en la evidencia. Cicatrização Ferimentos e lesões Prática clínica baseada em evidências. |
topic |
Wound Healing Wounds and Injuries Evidence-based practice. Cicatrización de Heridas Heridas y Lesiones Práctica clínica basada en la evidencia. Cicatrização Ferimentos e lesões Prática clínica baseada em evidências. |
description |
The aim is to identify and describe the main instruments used for wound analysis, in addition to raising their validation and cross-cultural adaptation to the Portuguese language. This is a scope review prepared according to the method proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The Regional Portal of the Virtual Health Library (BVS), MEDLINE (under the Pubmed interface), Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS and Scielo databases were consulted in order to identify studies that used at least one instrument validated for wound assessment by January 2021. Gray literature was verified using Google Scholar. The search strategy was developed using Health Science Descriptors (DeCS) and MeSH terms such as wound healing, assessment study and nursing assessment. Studies were included regardless of the design used, only studies that did not report the use of any instrument for wound assessment, or studies involving preclinical models were excluded. Two reviewers selected the articles independently. The instruments found were described and categorized after the reviewers' calibration. 51 instruments for wound assessment were found in a total of 110 selected studies. These instruments involved different approaches in clinical practice (wound healing, infection, pain caused by the wound, etc.). However, only eight (15.7%) were cross-culturally adapted for use in the Portuguese language. This study suggests that more instruments must be developed and adapted to the Portuguese language of Brazil, so that the diagnosis and treatment of wounds can be more accurate. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-08-25 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/19246 10.33448/rsd-v10i11.19246 |
url |
https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/19246 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.33448/rsd-v10i11.19246 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/19246/17350 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 No. 11; e144101119246 Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 Núm. 11; e144101119246 Research, Society and Development; v. 10 n. 11; e144101119246 2525-3409 reponame:Research, Society and Development instname:Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI) instacron:UNIFEI |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI) |
instacron_str |
UNIFEI |
institution |
UNIFEI |
reponame_str |
Research, Society and Development |
collection |
Research, Society and Development |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development - Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
rsd.articles@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1797052754312560640 |