Question · asked by 1 review

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive water‐filled surfaces: Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer

It is very uncertain whether alternating pressure (active) air surfaces changes proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive water‐filled surfaces (very low certainty).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive water‐filled surfaces
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer · pressure ulcer prevention
It is very uncertain whether alternating pressure (active) air surfaces changes proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive water‐filled surfaces (very low certainty).
Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.21 [0.52, 2.83]2 studies · 358 participantsVery low

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers
2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedlist not extracted yetNot assessed

Studies behind the findings

None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.

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.