What do systematic reviews say?

Reactive air surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

It is very uncertain whether reactive air surfaces changes proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (very low certainty).

• Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.62 [0.35, 1.11]
  6 studies · 1648 participants
  Very low

Reactive air surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

Reactive air surfaces may leads to lower time to pressure ulcer incidence compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (low certainty).

• Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.44 [0.21, 0.96]
  1 study · 308 participants
  Low

Reactive air surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

• Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  4 studies · 1364 participants
  Very low

Reactive air surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Reactive air surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Reactive air surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found