Question · asked by 1 review
Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds vs reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds: Cost‐effectiveness
- Population
- pressure ulcer prevention
- Intervention
- Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds
- Comparison
- reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds
- Outcome
- Cost‐effectiveness
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds vs reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds Cost effectiveness · pressure ulcer prevention The review found no eligible studies for this question. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | Not reported | No studies found |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not 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.