Cochrane · systematic review · CD009490
Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers
McInnes, E, Jammali‐Blasi, A, Bell‐Syer, SEM, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
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
10
current version
GRADE rated
10
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 10%Low 9 · 90%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
Profiling bed with foam mattress compared with hospital bed with foam mattress
Population: patients from two surgical and two medical wards
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pressure ulcer healing Profiling bed with foam mattress vs hospital bed with foam mattress | RR 3.96 [1.28, 12.24] | 1 study · 70 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Water mattress overlay compared with low‐tech mattress
Population: nursing home patients, > 59 years old
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pressure ulcer healing Water mattress overlay vs low‐tech mattress | RR 0.93 [0.63, 1.37] | 1 study · 120 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Low‐air‐loss bed compared with low‐tech mattress overlay
Population: elderly nursing home residents with multiple medical problems
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pressure ulcers completely healed Low‐air‐loss bed vs low‐tech mattress overlay | RR 1.3 [0.87, 1.96] | 1 study · 84 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Alternating pressure mattresses
Population: varied
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Ulcers completely healed | RR 0.57 [0.26, 1.27] | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Decrease in pressure ulcer size | RR 0.58 [0.21, 1.65] | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Ulcers completely healed | RR 0.99 [0.9, 1.09] | 1 study · 141 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Alternating‐pressure mattress compared with alternating‐pressure mattress overlay
Population: varied
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pressure ulcer improvement Alternating‐pressure mattress vs alternating‐pressure mattress overlay | RR 0.97 [0.8, 1.17] | 1 study · 158 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Pressure ulcer healing Alternating‐pressure mattress vs alternating‐pressure mattress overlay | RR 0.96 [0.58, 1.6] | 1 study · 113 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Alternating‐pressure mattress compared with air‐filled devices
Population: patients with pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of patients with healed pressure ulcer Alternating‐pressure mattress vs air‐filled devices | RR 5.5 [0.73, 41.44] | 1 study · 50 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Alternating‐pressure cushion compared with dry flotation cushion
Population: patients with pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pressure ulcers completely healed Alternating‐pressure cushion vs dry flotation cushion | RR 0.47 [0.14, 1.56] | 1 study · 25 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |