Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

3,429 questions · 3,558 findings · 436 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 660 · 18.5%GRADE not reported 375 · 10.5%Very low 727 · 20.4%Low 887 · 24.9%Moderate 709 · 19.9%High 200 · 5.6%

Spinal Cord Injury Navigator programme vs usual rehabilitation care/education

Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer · s

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Multicomponent motivational interviewing/self‐management intervention with a multi component education intervention vs telephone‐based individual educational counselling plus group education

Time to occurrence of new ulcer · s

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Multicomponent motivational interviewing/self‐management intervention with a multi component education intervention vs telephone‐based individual educational counselling plus group education

Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer · s

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Pressure ulcer prevention care bundle vs usual care

Time to occurrence of new ulcer · s

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Pressure ulcer prevention care bundle vs usual care

Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer · s

Pressure ulcer prevention care bundle showed no clear difference in proportion of participants developing a new ulcer (28 days) compared with standard care (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 0.58 [0.25, 1.33]
1 study · 1598 participants
Low

Structured, patient‐centric pressure ulcer prevention education event vs standard unit education

Time to occurrence of new ulcer · s

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Structured, patient‐centric pressure ulcer prevention education event vs standard unit education

Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer · s

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Carer self‐instruction and one‐to‐one counselling vs self‐instruction

Time to occurrence of new ulcer · s

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Carer self‐instruction and one‐to‐one counselling vs self‐instruction

Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer · s

It is very uncertain whether carer self‐instruction and one‐to‐one counselling changes proportion of participants developing a new ulcer (12 months) compared with self‐instruction (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 2.05 [0.19, 21.7]
1 study · 75 participants
Very low

Home‐based training vs usual care

Time to occurrence of new ulcer · s

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Home‐based training vs usual care

Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer · s

It is very uncertain whether home‐based training changes proportion of participants developing a new ulcer (3 months) compared with usual care (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.53 [0.27, 1.02]
1 study · 70 participants
Very low

Enhanced educational intervention and structured follow‐up vs standard education

Time to occurrence of new ulcer · s

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Enhanced educational intervention and structured follow‐up vs standard education

Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer · s

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Education vs standard printed material

Time to occurrence of new ulcer · s

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at‐risk populations 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention not reported

Xpert Ultra result

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention not reported

True‐negatives (patients without pleural TB)

1 finding from 1 review

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
4 studies · 240 participants
Very low

Intervention not reported

False‐positives (patients incorrectly classified as having pleural TB)

1 finding from 1 review

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
4 studies · 240 participants
Very low

Intervention not reported

Xpert MTB/RIF result

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention not reported

Xpert Ultra result

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention not reported

True‐positives (patients with lymph node TB)

1 finding from 1 review

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 30 participants
Very low