Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

164 questions · 174 findings · 15 reviews · Wounds

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 74 · 42.5%GRADE not reported 19 · 10.9%Very low 44 · 25.3%Low 34 · 19.5%Moderate 3 · 1.7%High 0 · 0%

foam dressing vs basic wound contact dressing

Time to complete healing · people of any age with an existing pressure ulcer of Category/Stage II or above

1 finding from 1 review

Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 95 participants
Very low

foam dressing vs basic wound contact dressing

Adverse effect/event: 2. Adverse effects ‐ any ‐ medium‐termonly · people of any age with an existing pressure ulcer of Category/Stage II or above

Foam dressings showed no clear difference in adverse events, medium‐term compared with basic contact dressings (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.58 [0.33, 1.05]
1 study · 95 participants
Low

foam dressing vs basic wound contact dressing

Quality of life · people of any age with an existing pressure ulcer of Category/Stage II or above

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

foam dressing vs basic wound contact dressing

Incremental cost per event, short‐term · people of any age with an existing pressure ulcer of Category/Stage II or above

1 finding from 1 review

Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 36 participants
Very low

foam dressing vs hydrocolloid dressing

Incidence of healing, short‐term · people of any age with an existing pressure ulcer of Category/Stage II or above

It is very uncertain whether foam dressings changes incidence of healing, short‐term compared with hydrocolloid dressings (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.85 [0.54, 1.34]
3 studies · 198 participants
Very low

foam dressing vs hydrocolloid dressing

Time to complete healing · people of any age with an existing pressure ulcer of Category/Stage II or above

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

foam dressing vs hydrocolloid dressing

Adverse events, short‐term · people of any age with an existing pressure ulcer of Category/Stage II or above

It is very uncertain whether foam dressings changes adverse events, short‐term compared with hydrocolloid dressings (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.88 [0.37, 2.11]
3 studies · 198 participants
Very low

foam dressing vs hydrocolloid dressing

Quality of life · people of any age with an existing pressure ulcer of Category/Stage II or above

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

foam dressing vs basic wound contact dressing

Number of pressure ulcers healed · people with diabetes and foot ulcers

Foam dressings showed no clear difference in nunber of ulcers healed compared with basic wound contact dressings (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 2.03 [0.91, 4.55]
2 studies · 49 participants
Low

foam dressing vs alginate dressing

Ulcer healing · people with diabetes and foot ulcers

Foam dressings showed no clear difference in number of ulcers healed compared with alginate dressings (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.5 [0.92, 2.44]
2 studies · 50 participants
Low

foam dressing vs alginate dressing

Adverse events · people with diabetes and foot ulcers

1 finding from 1 review

Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
0 studies · 1 participants
GRADE not reported

foam dressing vs hydrocolloid dressing

Ulcer healing · people with diabetes and foot ulcers

It is very uncertain whether foam dressings changes number of ulcers healed compared with hydrocolloid matrix dressings (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.88 [0.61, 1.26]
1 study · 40 participants
Very low

foam dressing vs hydrocolloid dressing

Adverse events · people with diabetes and foot ulcers

1 finding from 1 review

Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
0 studies · 1 participants
GRADE not reported

Profiling bed with foam mattress vs hospital bed with foam mattress

The proportion of pressure ulcers healed · patients from two surgical and two medical wards

It is very uncertain whether profiling bed with foam mattress changes pressure ulcer healing compared with hospital bed with foam mattress (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 3.96 [1.28, 12.24]
1 study · 70 participants
Very low

Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds

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

Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces… may leads to higher proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and… (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 4.53 [1.31, 15.65]
2 studies · 415 participants
Low

Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds

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 on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds

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 on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds

All reported adverse events · preventing pressure ulcers

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
1 study · 198 participants
Very low

Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds

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 on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds

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