Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2,209 questions · 2,322 findings · 227 reviews · Headline outcomes only

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 644 · 27.7%GRADE not reported 135 · 5.8%Very low 591 · 25.5%Low 582 · 25.1%Moderate 309 · 13.3%High 61 · 2.6%

Reactive air surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces

Time to pressure ulcer development · pressure ulcer prevention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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 reactive gel surfaces

Support surface associated patient comfort · pressure ulcer prevention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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 reactive gel surfaces

All reported adverse events · pressure ulcer prevention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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 reactive gel surfaces

Health‐related quality of life · pressure ulcer prevention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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 reactive gel surfaces

Cost‐effectiveness · pressure ulcer prevention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Support surface associated patient comfort · pressure ulcer prevention

1 finding from 1 review

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

All reported adverse events · pressure ulcer prevention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Health‐related quality of life · pressure ulcer prevention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Cost‐effectiveness · pressure ulcer prevention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Reactive air surfaces 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

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

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

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 alternating pressure (active) 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 0.83 [0.35, 1.93]
2 studies · 358 participants
Very low

Reactive water 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 water 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 water 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 fibre surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

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

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).

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 1.11 [0.84, 1.47]
3 studies · 285 participants
Very low