What do systematic reviews say?

Foam surfaces vs reactive foam and gel surfaces

• Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 182 participants
  Very low

Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

Foam surfaces showed no clear difference in proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (low certainty).

• Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.59 [0.86, 2.95]
  4 studies · 2247 participants
  Low

Foam surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces

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

• Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.17 [0.64, 2.14]
  1 study · 68 participants
  Very low

Foam surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces

• Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 270 participants
  Very low

Foam surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

Foam surfaces may leads to higher proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive air surfaces (low certainty).

• Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 2.4 [1.04, 5.54]
  4 studies · 229 participants
  Low

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

Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces… may leads to higher proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and… (low certainty).

• Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 4.53 [1.31, 15.65]
  2 studies · 415 participants
  Low

Reactive fibre surfaces vs foam surfaces

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

• Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.86 [0.47, 1.57]
  1 study · 68 participants
  Very low

Reactive air surfaces vs foam surfaces

Reactive air surfaces may leads to lower proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (low certainty).

• Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.42 [0.18, 0.96]
  4 studies · 229 participants
  Low

Reactive gel surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

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

• Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.8 [0.36, 1.77]
  1 study · 66 participants
  Very low

Reactive water surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

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

• Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.83 [0.35, 1.93]
  2 studies · 358 participants
  Very low

Reactive fibre surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

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

• Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.11 [0.84, 1.47]
  3 studies · 285 participants
  Very low

Reactive water surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

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

• Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 2.35 [0.23, 23.75]
  1 study · 37 participants
  Very low

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces showed no clear difference in proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (low certainty).

• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.63 [0.34, 1.17]
  4 studies · 2247 participants
  Low

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

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and… may leads to lower proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces… (low certainty).

• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.22 [0.06, 0.76]
  2 studies · 415 participants
  Low