What do systematic reviews say?

Reactive water surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

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 gel surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

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

Reactive water surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

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

• 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

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

• 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

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs conventional surgery

Endovenous laser ablation showed no clear difference in clinical evidence of recurrence after 1 year compared with conventional surgery (low certainty).

• Endovenous ablation therapy (laser or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.54 [0.17, 1.75]
  1 study · 99 participants
  Low

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs conventional surgery

• Endovenous ablation therapy (laser or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 99 participants
  Moderate

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs conventional surgery

• Endovenous ablation therapy (laser or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 265 participants
  Moderate
• Endovenous ablation therapy (laser or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 99 participants
  Low

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs conventional surgery

• Endovenous ablation therapy (laser or radiofrequency) or foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgical repair for… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 265 participants
  Moderate