Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces: Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer
Foam surfaces showed no clear difference in proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer · pressure ulcer prevention Foam surfaces showed no clear difference in proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (low certainty). Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.59 [0.86, 2.95] | 4 studies · 2247 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not 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.