Cochrane · systematic review · CD013624
Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating 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
18
current version
GRADE rated
10
No studies
8
Included studies
NR
No studies 8 · 44.4%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 33.3%Low 4 · 22.2%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
Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces compared with foam surfaces for treating pressure ulcers
Population: people with pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants with pressure ulcers completely healed Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 132 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to pressure ulcer healing Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface‐associated patient comfort ( Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
All reported adverse events Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 49 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Health‐related quality of life Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost effectiveness Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Reactive air surfaces compared with foam surfaces for treating pressure ulcers
Population: people with pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants with pressure ulcers completely healed Reactive air surfaces vs foam surfaces | RR 1.32 [0.96, 1.8] | 2 studies · 156 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Time to complete pressure ulcer healing Reactive air surfaces vs foam surfaces | HR 2.66 [1.34, 5.17] | 1 study · 84 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
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 | 2 studies · 156 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
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 | 1 study · 87 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Reactive water surfaces compared with foam surfaces for treating pressure ulcers
Population: people with pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants with pressure ulcers completely healed Reactive water surfaces vs foam surfaces | RR 1.07 [0.7, 1.63] | 1 study · 101 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to complete pressure ulcer healing Reactive water surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Support surface associated patient comfort Reactive water surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All reported adverse events Reactive water surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 120 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Health‐related quality of life Reactive water surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness Reactive water surfaces vs foam surfaces | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |