The prevalence, characteristics, and related factors of pressure injury in medical staff wearing personal protective equipment against COVID-19 in Turkey: A multicenter cross-sectional study

Influencing factors of medical device-related pressure ulcers in medical personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this study, 263 studies were excluded after reading the title and abstract of the studies. 61 studies were excluded after full text reading of the articles that might meet the inclusion criteria, and finally 9 studies were included [ [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] ], including 5 Chinese studies and 4 English literatures. Among the 9 studies included, 1 was a retrospective study [ 19 ], and 8 were a cross-sectional study [ [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [20] , [21] , [22] ].…”

“…61 studies were excluded after full text reading of the articles that might meet the inclusion criteria, and finally 9 studies were included [ [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] ], including 5 Chinese studies and 4 English literatures. Among the 9 studies included, 1 was a retrospective study [ 19 ], and 8 were a cross-sectional study [ [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [20] , [21] , [22] ]. The specific process and results of literature screening are shown in Fig.…”

“…Nine papers [ [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] ] were included, published from 2020 to 2022, with a total of 11215 subjects in three countries, including China, Brazil and Turkey. AHRQ was used to evaluate the cross-sectional studies, including 11 items.…”

“…Eight cross-sectional studies were more consistent with the quality requirements of the included literature in terms of inclusion criteria formulation, outcome index evaluation, quality control, etc. The methodological quality evaluation scores of eight papers [ [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [20] , [21] , [22] ] were all ≥6 points, which were of medium and high quality. Among them, five were of high quality [ [16] , [17] , [18] , 21 , 22 ], and three were of medium quality [ 14 , 15 , 20 ].…”

“…The methodological quality evaluation scores of eight papers [ [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [20] , [21] , [22] ] were all ≥6 points, which were of medium and high quality. Among them, five were of high quality [ [16] , [17] , [18] , 21 , 22 ], and three were of medium quality [ 14 , 15 , 20 ]. The retrospective study was evaluated by NOS, and the quality evaluation score of one retrospective study [ 19 ] was 7, which was high-quality literature.…”