What do systematic reviews say?

Alternating‐pressure mattress vs air‐filled devices

Alternating‐pressure mattress showed no clear difference in proportion of patients with healed pressure ulcer compared with air‐filled devices (low certainty).

• Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 5.5 [0.73, 41.44]
  1 study · 50 participants
  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 vs reactive water‐filled surfaces

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

• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.21 [0.52, 2.83]
  2 studies · 358 participants
  Very low

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive water‐filled surfaces

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces

It is very uncertain whether alternating pressure (active) air surfaces changes time to pressure ulcer development compared with foam surfaces (very low certainty).

• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.41 [0.1, 1.64]
  2 studies · 2105 participants
  Very low

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces

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

• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.9 [0.68, 1.19]
  3 studies · 285 participants
  Very low

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces

• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 267 participants
  Low
• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 233 participants
  Low

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

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

• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.61 [0.9, 2.88]
  6 studies · 1648 participants
  Very low

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may leads to higher time to pressure ulcer development compared with reactive air surfaces (low certainty).

• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 2.25 [1.05, 4.83]
  1 study · 308 participants
  Low

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces

• Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 132 participants
  Very low

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

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

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Pressure‐garment therapy (PGT) vs silicone

• Pressure‐garment therapy for preventing hypertrophic scarring after burn injury 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 159 participants
  Very low

Pressure‐garment therapy (PGT) plus silicone vs silicone

• Pressure‐garment therapy for preventing hypertrophic scarring after burn injury 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 159 participants
  Very low

Pressure‐garment therapy (PGT) plus scar management therapy including silicone vs scar management therapy including silicone

• Pressure‐garment therapy for preventing hypertrophic scarring after burn injury 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 88 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 alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

It is very uncertain whether foam surfaces changes time to pressure ulcer development compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (very low certainty).

• Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 2105 participants
  Very low

Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

• Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 267 participants
  Low
• Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 233 participants
  Low