Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces
All reported adverse events · pressure ulcer prevention
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted3 studies · 2181 participantsVery low
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
6 questions · 6 findings · 2 reviews
No studies found 3 · 50%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 50%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Foam surfaces vs reactive air surfaces
All reported adverse events · pressure ulcer prevention
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 72 participantsVery low
Foam surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces
All reported adverse events · pressure ulcer prevention
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Foam surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces
All reported adverse events · pressure ulcer prevention
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Foam surfaces vs reactive foam and gel surfaces
All reported adverse events · pressure ulcer prevention
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds
All reported adverse events · preventing pressure ulcers
1 finding from 1 review
- Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted1 study · 198 participantsVery low