NMA evidence for individual network: proportion with complete healing ‐ interventions vs saline gauze: Combination silicone foam dressings
It is very uncertain whether NMA evidence for individual network: proportion with complete… changes combination silicone foam dressings compared with saline gauze (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
NMA evidence for individual network: proportion with complete healing ‐ interventions vs saline gauze Combination silicone foam dressings · people with pressure ulcers It is very uncertain whether NMA evidence for individual network: proportion with complete… changes combination silicone foam dressings compared with saline gauze (very low certainty). Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.93 [0.38, 9.98] | Not reported | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers 2017 · 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.