Search

Background: Empirical evidence is uncertain regarding the value of nonblanchable erythema in predicting the incidence of stage 2 (or more severe) pressure ulcers., Objectives: To investigate whether nonblanchable erythema is an independent prognostic factor for pressure ulcer incidence using individual patient data., Methods: We performed an electronic database search in February 2017 to identify longitudinal studies that considered nonblanchable erythema for predicting pressure ulcer risk in any population. We collected individual participant data for the included studies, and assessed the risk of bias of these studies using the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool. We analysed individual participant data in Stata using mixed-effects logistic regression to investigate the association of interest. The certainty of evidence from individual participant data analysis was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017081151)., Results: From the 13 included studies (total 68 077 participants) we had access to individual participant data from four (n = 3223), and 11·9% of participants (383 of 3223) developed new pressure ulcers of stage 2 or above within 28 days. Mixed-effects logistic regression showed that participants with nonblanchable erythema had higher odds of developing new pressure ulcers of stage 2 or above within 28 days of follow-up than those without nonblanchable erythema (multivariable association: n = 2684; odds ratio 2·72, 95% confidence interval 2·02-3·69; τ 2 = 0; moderate-certainty evidence)., Conclusions: This first prognostic factor review with individual-level data analysis in patients with pressure ulcers suggests that people with nonblanchable erythema are more likely to develop new pressure ulcers of stage 2 or above within 28 days than people without nonblanchable erythema. It is important to identify nonblanchable erythema in practice and to intervene appropriately to prevent pressure ulceration. What's already known about this topic? Pressure ulcer reduction is a high priority for healthcare systems. Regularly inspecting skin to identify skin abnormalities is one key practice for preventing ulceration. Nonblanchable erythema - discoloration of the skin that does not turn white when pressed - is one clinically important skin abnormality. Empirical evidence synthesized using conventional meta-analysis is uncertain regarding the value of nonblanchable erythema for predicting open pressure ulcer incidence; this is partly because the conventional technique has weakness in terms of pooling prognostic effects of different multivariable analyses across studies. What does this study add? This prognostic factor review used individual-level data analysis to overcome the limitations of the conventional meta-analysis technique. For the first time there is confirmatory and moderate-certainty evidence on the association of nonblanchable erythema with pressure ulcer incidence. People with nonblanchable erythema are more likely to develop new pressure ulcers of stage 2 or more severe within 28 days than people without nonblanchable erythema, regardless of their age, baseline pressure ulcer risk or received support surfaces., (© 2019 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Objective: To determine for how long after a first unprovoked seizure a driver must be seizure-free before the risk of recurrence in the next 12 months falls below 20%, enabling them to regain their driving licence., Design: Randomised controlled trial: Multicentre study of early Epilepsy and Single Seizures (MESS)., Setting: UK hospital outpatient clinics from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 2000., Participants: People entered MESS if they had had one or more unprovoked seizures and both the participant and the clinician were uncertain about the need to start antiepileptic drug treatment. The subset of people used for this analysis comprised participants aged at least 16 years with a single unprovoked seizure., Main Outcome Measure: Risk of seizure recurrence in the 12 months after a seizure-free period of 6, 12, 18, or 24 months from the date of the first (index) seizure. Regression modelling was used to investigate how antiepileptic treatment and several clinical factors influence the risk of seizure recurrence., Results: At six months after the index seizure the risk of recurrence in the next 12 months for those who start antiepileptic drugs was significantly below 20% (unadjusted risk 14%, 95% confidence interval 10% to 18%). For patients who did not start treatment the risk estimate was less than 20% but the upper limit of the confidence interval was greater than 20% (18%, 13% to 23%). Multivariable analyses identified subgroups with a significantly greater than 20% risk of seizure recurrence in the 12 months after a six month seizure-free period, such as those with a remote symptomatic seizure with abnormal electroencephalogram results., Conclusion: After a single unprovoked seizure this reanalysis of MESS provides estimates of seizure recurrence risks that will inform policy and guidance about regaining an ordinary driving licence. Further guidance is needed as to how such data should be utilised; in particular, whether a population approach should be taken with a focus on the unadjusted results or whether attempts should be made to individualise risk. Guidance is also required as to whether the focus should be on risk estimates only or on the confidence interval as well. If the focus is on the estimate only our unadjusted estimates suggest that treated and untreated patients are eligible to drive after being seizure-free for six months. If the focus is also on confidence intervals, direction is needed as to whether a conservative or liberal approach should be taken., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98767960.