What do systematic reviews say?

Reactive fibre surfaces vs foam surfaces

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

• Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.86 [0.47, 1.57]
  1 study · 68 participants
  Very low

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

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).

• 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

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

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

• 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

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

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

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 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 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 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 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 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