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).

1 finding from 1 review

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 gel surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

Time to pressure ulcer development · preventing pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Reactive gel surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

Support surface associated patient comfort · preventing pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Reactive gel surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

All reported adverse events · preventing pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Reactive gel surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

Health‐related quality of life · preventing pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Reactive gel surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

Cost‐effectiveness · preventing pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Reactive water surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

All reported adverse events · preventing pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Reactive water surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

Health‐related quality of life · preventing pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Reactive water surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

Cost‐effectiveness · preventing pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Reactive water surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer · preventing pressure ulcers

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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Reactive water surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

Time to pressure ulcer development · preventing pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Reactive water surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

Support surface associated patient comfort · preventing pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs conventional surgery

Recanalisation or persistence of reflux at 6 weeks · people requiring intervention for short saphenous vein varices

Endovenous laser ablation probably leads to lower recanalisation or persistence of reflux at 6 weeks compared with conventional surgery (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Endovenous ablation therapy (laser or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.07 [0.02, 0.22]
3 studies · 289 participants
Moderate

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs conventional surgery

Recurrence of reflux at 1 year · people requiring intervention for short saphenous vein varices

Endovenous laser ablation may leads to lower recurrence of reflux at 1 year compared with conventional surgery (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Endovenous ablation therapy (laser or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.24 [0.07, 0.77]
2 studies · 119 participants
Low