ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
Investigation of Pressure Injuries With Visual ChatGPT Integration: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advantages and challenges for utilization of generative artificial intelligence in clinical nursing practice: an integrative review.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- An Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models in Clinical Nursing: A Scoping Review and Expert Consultation.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to assess the performance of Visual ChatGPT in staging pressure injuries using real patient images, compare it to manual staging by expert nurses, and evaluate its applicability as a supportive tool in wound care management.
designThis study used a descriptive and comparative cross-sectional design.
methodsThe study analysed 155 patient pressure injury images from a hospital database, staged by expert nurses and Visual ChatGPT using the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel guidelines. Visual ChatGPT's performance was tested in two scenarios: with images only and with images plus wound characteristics. Diagnostic performance was evaluated, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and inter-rater agreement (Kappa).
resultsExpert nurses demonstrated superior accuracy and specificity across most pressure injury stages. Visual ChatGPT performed comparably in early-stage pressure injuries, especially when wound characteristics were included, but struggled with unstageable and deep-tissue pressure injuries.
conclusionVisual ChatGPT shows potential as an artificial intelligence tool for pressure injury staging and wound management in nursing. However, improvements are necessary for complex cases, ensuring that artificial intelligence complements clinical judgement. IMPLICATIONS FOR PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Visual ChatGPT can serve as an innovative artificial intelligence tool in clinical settings, assisting less experienced nurses and those in areas with limited wound care specialists in staging and managing pressure injuries. REPORTING
methodThe STROBE checklist was followed for reporting cross-sectional studies in line with the relevant EQUATOR guidelines. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.