Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

154 questions · 156 findings · 9 reviews · Wounds

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 87 · 55.8%GRADE not reported 1 · 0.6%Very low 39 · 25%Low 27 · 17.3%Moderate 2 · 1.3%High 0 · 0%

Reactive air surfaces vs foam surfaces

Cost‐effectiveness · people with pressure ulcers

1 finding from 1 review

Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 87 participants
Low

Reactive air surfaces vs foam surfaces

Ulcer healing · people with pressure ulcers

Reactive air surfaces showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with pressure ulcers completely healed compared with foam surfaces (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.32 [0.96, 1.8]
2 studies · 156 participants
Low

Reactive air surfaces vs foam surfaces

Time to complete healing of pressure ulcers ‐ not reported · people with pressure ulcers

Reactive air surfaces may leads to higher time to complete pressure ulcer healing compared with foam surfaces (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 2.66 [1.34, 5.17]
1 study · 84 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

Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer · pressure ulcer prevention

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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Time to pressure ulcer development · pressure ulcer prevention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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 on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds vs reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds

All reported adverse events · pressure ulcer prevention

1 finding from 1 review

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 198 participants
Very 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

Health‐related quality of life · pressure ulcer prevention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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 on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds vs reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds

Cost‐effectiveness · pressure ulcer prevention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Reactive water surfaces vs foam surfaces

Ulcer healing · people with pressure ulcers

It is very uncertain whether reactive water surfaces changes proportion of participants with pressure ulcers completely healed compared with foam surfaces (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.07 [0.7, 1.63]
1 study · 101 participants
Very low

Reactive water surfaces vs foam surfaces

Time to complete healing of pressure ulcers ‐ not reported · people with pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Reactive water surfaces vs foam surfaces

All reported adverse events · people with pressure ulcers

1 finding from 1 review

Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 120 participants
Very low

Reactive water surfaces vs foam surfaces

Health‐related quality of life · people with pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Reactive water surfaces vs foam surfaces

Cost‐effectiveness · people with pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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 vs foam surfaces

Ulcer healing · people with pressure ulcers

1 finding from 1 review

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

Time to complete healing of pressure ulcers ‐ not reported · people with pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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 vs foam surfaces

All reported adverse events · people with pressure ulcers

1 finding from 1 review

Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 49 participants
Very low

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces

Health‐related quality of life · people with pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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 vs foam surfaces

Cost‐effectiveness · people with pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Aqueous oxygen peroxide vs placebo (saline solution or sterile water)

Change in ulcer size · people with venous leg ulcers

1 finding from 1 review

Wound cleansing for treating venous leg ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 61 participants
Very low

Topical antimicrobial agent vs alternative antimicrobial agent

Change in wound surface area over time or partial healing (> 95%) (12 months) · people with facial burns

1 finding from 1 review

Topical treatment for facial burns 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
142 participants
Low