Cochrane · systematic review · CD009362
Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers
Moore, ZEH, Webster, J · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
25
current version
GRADE rated
23
No studies
2
Included studies
NR
No studies 2 · 8%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 15 · 60%Low 8 · 32%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Show all 2 versionsFatty acid versus other topical intervention or standard care for preventing pressure ulcers
Population: individuals at risk of pressure ulcer development
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pressure ulcer incidence: fatty acid vs olive oil Fatty acid vs other topical intervention or standard care | RR 1.28 [0.76, 2.17] | 2 studies · 1060 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Pressure ulcer incidence: fatty acid vs control compound Fatty acid vs other topical intervention or standard care | RR 0.42 [0.22, 0.8] | 1 study · 331 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Pressure ulcer incidence: fatty acid vs standard care Fatty acid vs other topical intervention or standard care | RR 0.7 [0.41, 1.18] | 2 studies · 187 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Pressure ulcer incidence: fatty acid vs olive oil (high‐quality trials) Fatty acid vs other topical intervention or standard care | RR 1.46 [0.77, 2.75] | 1 study · 831 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse event: fatty acid vs olive oil Fatty acid vs other topical intervention or standard care | RR 2.22 [0.2, 24.37] | 1 study · 831 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Active topical agent versus placebo/control for preventing pressure ulcers
Population: individuals at risk of pressure ulcer development
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pressure ulcer incidence: active lotion vs placebo Active topical agent vs placebo/control | RR 0.73 [0.45, 1.19] | 1 study · 167 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Pressure ulcer incidence: DMSO cream vs placebo Active topical agent vs placebo/control | RR 1.99 [1.1, 3.57] | 1 study · 61 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Pressure ulcer incidence: Conotrane vs placebo Active topical agent vs placebo/control | RR 0.74 [0.52, 1.07] | 1 study · 258 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Pressure ulcer incidence: Prevasore vs control Active topical agent vs placebo/control | RR 0.33 [0.04, 3.11] | 1 study · 120 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Stage 3 pressure ulcer incidence: Conotrane vs placebo Active topical agent vs placebo/control | RR 1.25 [0.34, 4.55] | 1 study · 258 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Stage 4 pressure ulcer incidence: Conotrane vs placebo Active topical agent vs placebo/control | RR 0.33 [0.01, 8.11] | 1 study · 258 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events: active lotion vs placebo Active topical agent vs placebo/control | OR 6.14 [0.29, 129.89] | 1 study · 167 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Silicone dressing compared with no dressing for preventing pressure ulcers
Population: individuals at risk of pressure ulcer development
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pressure ulcer incidence Silicone dressing vs no dressing | RR 0.25 [0.16, 0.41] | 6 studies · 1247 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Stage 1 pressure ulcer incidence Silicone dressing vs no dressing | RR 0.27 [0.08, 0.9] | 3 studies · 749 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Stage 2 pressure ulcer incidence Silicone dressing vs no dressing | RR 0.4 [0.17, 0.94] | 4 studies · 1090 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Stage 4 pressure ulcer incidence Silicone dressing vs no dressing | RR 0.2 [0.01, 4.13] | 1 study · 322 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Unstageable pressure ulcer incidence Silicone dressing vs no dressing | RR 0.2 [0.01, 4.09] | 1 study · 366 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Deep tissue injury pressure ulcer incidence Silicone dressing vs no dressing | RR 0.99 [0.06, 15.69] | 1 study · 366 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Silicone dressing vs no dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Other dressing versus control for preventing pressure ulcers
Population: individuals at risk of pressure ulcer development
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pressure ulcer incidence: polyurethane film vs hydrocolloid dressing Other dressing vs control | RR 0.58 [0.24, 1.41] | 1 study · 160 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Pressure ulcer incidence: Kang’ huier vs routine care Other dressing vs control | RR 0.42 [0.08, 2.05] | 1 study · 100 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Pressure ulcer incidence: PPD vs no dressing Other dressing vs control | RR 0.18 [0.04, 0.76] | 1 study · 74 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Pressure ulcer incidence: thin polyurethane foam vs no dressing Other dressing vs control | RR 1.31 [0.83, 2.07] | 1 study · 74 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Pressure ulcer incidence: adhesive foam dressing vs no dressing Other dressing vs control | RR 1.65 [1.1, 2.48] | 1 study · 78 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Other dressing vs control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |