Cochrane · systematic review · CD013620
Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers
Shi, C, Dumville, JC, Cullum, N, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · 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
31
current version
GRADE rated
15
No studies
16
Included studies
NR
No studies 16 · 51.6%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 9 · 29%Low 5 · 16.1%Moderate 1 · 3.2%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
Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces compared with foam surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention
Population: pressure ulcer prevention
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces | RR 0.63 [0.34, 1.17] | 4 studies · 2247 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer development Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces | HR 0.41 [0.1, 1.64] | 2 studies · 2105 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Support surface‐associated patient comfort Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 76 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
All reported adverse events Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 2181 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Health‐related quality of life (90‐day EQ‐5D‐5L, expressed as utility values ranging from −1 to 1 with 1 representing perfect health, 0 representing death, and −1 representing worse than death) Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 267 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Health‐related quality of life (90‐day PU‐QoL‐UI, expressed as utility values ranging from −1 to 1 with 1 representing perfect health, 0 representing death, and −1 representing worse than death) Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 233 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Cost‐effectiveness Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces compared with reactive air surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention
Population: pressure ulcer prevention
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | RR 1.61 [0.9, 2.88] | 6 studies · 1648 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer development Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | HR 2.25 [1.05, 4.83] | 1 study · 308 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Support surface‐associated patient comfort Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 1364 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
All reported adverse events Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost effectiveness Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces compared with reactive water‐filled surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention
Population: pressure ulcer prevention
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive water‐filled surfaces | RR 1.21 [0.52, 2.83] | 2 studies · 358 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer development Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive water‐filled surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface‐associated patient comfort Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive water‐filled surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All reported adverse events Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive water‐filled surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive water‐filled surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost effectiveness Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive water‐filled surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces compared with reactive fibre surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention
Population: pressure ulcer prevention
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces | RR 0.9 [0.68, 1.19] | 3 studies · 285 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer development Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface‐associated patient comfort Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 187 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
All reported adverse events Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost effectiveness Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds compared with reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds for pressure ulcer prevention
Population: pressure ulcer prevention
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer 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 | RR 0.22 [0.06, 0.76] | 2 studies · 415 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer development 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 | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface‐associated patient comfort 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 | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All reported adverse events 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 | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 198 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Health‐related quality of life 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 | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost effectiveness 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 | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |