Cochrane · systematic review · CD013623
Alternative reactive support surfaces (non‐foam and non‐air‐filled) 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
36
current version
GRADE rated
8
No studies
28
Included studies
NR
No studies 28 · 77.8%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 7 · 19.4%Low 1 · 2.8%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 water surfaces compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers
Population: preventing pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer Reactive water surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | RR 0.83 [0.35, 1.93] | 2 studies · 358 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer incidence Reactive water surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface‐associated patient comfort Reactive water surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All reported adverse events Reactive water surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Reactive water surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost effectiveness Reactive water surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reactive water surfaces compared with reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers
Population: preventing pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer Reactive water surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | RR 2.35 [0.23, 23.75] | 1 study · 37 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer incidence Reactive water surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface‐associated patient comfort Reactive water surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All reported adverse events Reactive water surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Reactive water surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost effectiveness Reactive water surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reactive fibre surfaces compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers
Population: preventing pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer Reactive fibre surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | RR 1.11 [0.84, 1.47] | 3 studies · 285 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer incidence Reactive fibre surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface associated patient comfort Reactive fibre surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 187 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
All reported adverse events Reactive fibre surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Reactive fibre surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost effectiveness Reactive fibre surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reactive fibre surfaces compared with foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers
Population: preventing pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer Reactive fibre surfaces vs foam surfaces | RR 0.86 [0.47, 1.57] | 1 study · 68 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer incidence Reactive fibre surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface‐associated patient comfort Reactive fibre surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All reported adverse events Reactive fibre surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Reactive fibre surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost effectiveness Reactive fibre surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds for preventing pressure ulcers
Population: preventing pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds | RR 4.53 [1.31, 15.65] | 2 studies · 415 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer incidence Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface‐associated patient comfort Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All reported adverse events Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 198 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Health‐related quality of life Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost effectiveness Reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reactive gel surfaces compared with reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers
Population: preventing pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer Reactive gel surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | RR 0.8 [0.36, 1.77] | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer incidence Reactive gel surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface‐associated patient comfort Reactive gel surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All reported adverse events Reactive gel surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Reactive gel surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost effectiveness Reactive gel surfaces vs reactive air surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |