Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment showed no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence Visual skin assessment compared with ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment (low certainty).
Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment showed no clear difference in severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 1 compared with ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment (low certainty).
Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment showed no clear difference in severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 2 compared with ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment (low certainty).
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment showed no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence Visual skin assessment compared with pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement (low certainty).
Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment showed no clear difference in severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 1 compared with pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement (low certainty).
Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment showed no clear difference in severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 2 compared with pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement (low certainty).
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment showed no clear difference in severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 1 compared with pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement (low certainty).
Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment showed no clear difference in severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 2 compared with pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement (low certainty).
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment showed no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence Visual skin assessment compared with pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement (low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether braden pressure ulcer risk assessment and training changes pressure ulcer incidence Visual skin assessment compared with pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement and training (very low certainty).
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
It is very uncertain whether braden pressure ulcer risk assessment and training changes pressure ulcer incidence Visual skin assessment compared with pressure ulcer risk assessment using clinical judgement alone (very low certainty).
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Alternating‐pressure cushion showed no clear difference in pressure ulcers completely healed compared with dry flotation cushion (low certainty).
Alternating‐pressure mattress showed no clear difference in pressure ulcer improvement compared with alternating‐pressure mattress overlay (low certainty).
Alternating‐pressure mattress showed no clear difference in pressure ulcer healing compared with alternating‐pressure mattress overlay (low certainty).