Cochrane · systematic review · CD013622
Reactive 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
24
current version
GRADE rated
8
No studies
16
Included studies
NR
No studies 16 · 66.7%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 25%Low 2 · 8.3%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
Reactive air 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 Reactive air surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | RR 0.62 [0.35, 1.11] | 6 studies · 1648 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer incidence Reactive air surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | HR 0.44 [0.21, 0.96] | 1 study · 308 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Support surface associated patient comfort (median Reactive air surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 1364 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
All reported adverse events Reactive air surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Reactive air surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness Reactive air surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reactive 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 Reactive air surfaces vs foam surfaces | RR 0.42 [0.18, 0.96] | 4 studies · 229 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer incidence Reactive air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface associated patient comfort Reactive air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 72 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
All reported adverse events Reactive air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 72 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Health‐related quality of life Reactive air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness Reactive air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reactive air surfaces compared with reactive water surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention
Population: pressure ulcer prevention
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer Reactive air surfaces vs reactive water surfaces | RR 0.43 [0.04, 4.29] | 1 study · 37 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer incidence Reactive air surfaces vs reactive water surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface associated patient comfort Reactive air surfaces vs reactive water surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All reported adverse events Reactive air surfaces vs reactive water surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Reactive air surfaces vs reactive water surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness Reactive air surfaces vs reactive water surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reactive air 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 Reactive air surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces | RR 1.25 [0.56, 2.77] | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer incidence Reactive air surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface associated patient comfort Reactive air surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All reported adverse events Reactive air surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Reactive air surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness Reactive air surfaces vs reactive gel surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |