Monitoring (any means of observation, supervision, keeping under review, measuring or testing at intervals) vs observation: Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer
It is very uncertain whether monitoring and observation changes incidence of new pressure ulcers compared with observation alone (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Monitoring and observation vs observation alone Incidence of new pressure ulcers · staff caring for patients at risk of pressure ulcers It is very uncertain whether monitoring and observation changes incidence of new pressure ulcers compared with observation alone (very low certainty). Education of healthcare professionals for preventing pressure ulcers (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.93 [0.96, 3.88] | 1 study · 232 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Education of healthcare professionals for preventing pressure ulcers 2018 · 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.