Cochrane · systematic review · CD013621
Foam 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
13
No studies
18
Included studies
NR
No studies 18 · 58.1%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 8 · 25.8%Low 4 · 12.9%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
Foam surfaces compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention
Population: pressure ulcer prevention
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | RR 1.59 [0.86, 2.95] | 4 studies · 2247 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer development Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2105 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Support surface associated patient comfort Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 76 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
All reported adverse events Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air 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) Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air 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) Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 233 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Cost‐effectiveness Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Foam 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 Foam surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | RR 2.4 [1.04, 5.54] | 4 studies · 229 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer development Foam surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface associated patient comfort Foam surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 72 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
All reported adverse events Foam surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 72 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Health‐related quality of life Foam surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness Foam surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Foam 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 Foam surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces | RR 1.17 [0.64, 2.14] | 1 study · 68 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer development Foam surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface associated patient comfort Foam surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All reported adverse events Foam surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Foam surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness Foam surfaces vs reactive fibre surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Foam surfaces compared with reactive gel surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention
Population: pressure ulcer prevention
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer Foam surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 270 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer development Foam surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface associated patient comfort Foam surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All reported adverse events Foam surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Foam surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness Foam surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Foam surfaces compared with reactive foam and gel surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention
Population: pressure ulcer prevention
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer Foam surfaces vs reactive foam and gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 182 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer development Foam surfaces vs reactive foam and gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface associated patient comfort Foam surfaces vs reactive foam and gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All reported adverse events Foam surfaces vs reactive foam and gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Foam surfaces vs reactive foam and gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness Foam surfaces vs reactive foam and gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |