What do systematic reviews say?

Reactive air surfaces vs foam surfaces

• Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 72 participants
  Very low

Reactive water 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

Reactive air surfaces vs foam surfaces

• Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 72 participants
  Very low

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

• 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

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

Profiling bed with foam mattress vs hospital bed with foam mattress

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

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

Water mattress overlay vs low‐tech mattress

Water mattress overlay showed no clear difference in pressure ulcer healing compared with low‐tech mattress (low certainty).

• Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.93 [0.63, 1.37]
  1 study · 120 participants
  Low

Low‐air‐loss bed vs low‐tech mattress overlay

Low‐air‐loss bed showed no clear difference in pressure ulcers completely healed compared with low‐tech mattress overlay (low certainty).

• Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.3 [0.87, 1.96]
  1 study · 84 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

The intervention showed no clear difference in decrease in pressure ulcer size (low certainty).

• Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.58 [0.21, 1.65]
  1 study · 30 participants
  Low

Low tidal volume vs high tidal volume

Low tidal volume probably leads to lower need for postoperative non‐invasive ventilatory support compared with high tidal volume (moderate certainty).

• Intraoperative use of low volume ventilation to decrease postoperative mortality, mechanical ventilation, lengths of… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.31 [0.15, 0.64]
  3 studies · 506 participants
  Moderate

Low tidal volume vs high tidal volume

Low tidal volume probably leads to lower need for postoperative invasive ventilatory support compared with high tidal volume (moderate certainty).

• Intraoperative use of low volume ventilation to decrease postoperative mortality, mechanical ventilation, lengths of… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.33 [0.14, 0.77]
  11 studies · 957 participants
  Moderate

HFNC vs nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation

Nasal high flow showed no clear difference in treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry compared with nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (moderate certainty).

• Nasal high flow therapy for primary respiratory support in preterm infants 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.27 [0.9, 1.79]
  4 studies · 343 participants
  Moderate

HFNC vs nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation

Nasal high flow showed no clear difference in mechanical ventilation within 72 hours of trial entry compared with nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (moderate certainty).

• Nasal high flow therapy for primary respiratory support in preterm infants 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.91 [0.62, 1.33]
  4 studies · 343 participants
  Moderate