What do systematic reviews say?

Alternating‐pressure cushion vs dry flotation cushion

Alternating‐pressure cushion showed no clear difference in pressure ulcers completely healed compared with dry flotation cushion (low certainty).

• Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.47 [0.14, 1.56]
  1 study · 25 participants
  Low

Alternating‐pressure mattress vs alternating‐pressure mattress overlay

Alternating‐pressure mattress showed no clear difference in pressure ulcer improvement compared with alternating‐pressure mattress overlay (low certainty).

• Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.97 [0.8, 1.17]
  1 study · 158 participants
  Low

Alternating‐pressure mattress vs alternating‐pressure mattress overlay

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

• Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.96 [0.58, 1.6]
  1 study · 113 participants
  Low

Alternating‐pressure mattress vs air‐filled devices

Alternating‐pressure mattress showed no clear difference in proportion of patients with healed pressure ulcer compared with air‐filled devices (low certainty).

• Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 5.5 [0.73, 41.44]
  1 study · 50 participants
  Low

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  4 studies · 1364 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 fibre surfaces

• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 187 participants
  Very low

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces

• Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 76 participants
  Very low

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces

• Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 39 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

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

Reactive water surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

It is very uncertain whether reactive water surfaces changes proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (very low certainty).

• Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.83 [0.35, 1.93]
  2 studies · 358 participants
  Very low

Reactive fibre surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

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

• Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.11 [0.84, 1.47]
  3 studies · 285 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

• Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 187 participants
  Very low

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 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 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

Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

• Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 76 participants
  Very low