Question · asked by 1 review

Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds: Time to pressure ulcer development

Population
preventing pressure ulcers
Intervention
Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds
Comparison
alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds
Outcome
Time to pressure ulcer development

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds
Time to pressure ulcer incidence · preventing pressure ulcers
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extractedNot reportedNo studies found

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers
2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedNot extractedNot assessed
How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.