Table 1. Study Characterisitics.

n = number

Publication Date, Authors	Location, Setting, n	Body Site Reported/Stage of Ulcer	Study Design	Pressure Ulcer Prophylactic	Findings
(2009) Huang, et al. [6]	Dalin, Taiwan, Republic of China, Buddhist Dalin Tzu Chi General Hospital operating room, n = 18	Nose/ Stage I	Quantitative prospective cohort study. Patients in the study group had foam surrounding their intubation tubes compared to the control group who did not.	Silicone foam dressing vs standard hospital treatment protocol from Tzu Chi General Hospital.	Silicone foam dressings were found to reduce the incidence of pressure ulcer formation due to nasotracheal tube intubation. 8/8 (100%) formed pressure ulcers in the control group while 6/10 (60%) in the intervention group formed pressure ulcers.
(2011) Forni, et al. [9]	Italy, Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute, n = 105	Heel/ Stage I	Quantitative prospective cohort study. Patients in the intervention group were compared to control group data collected in the previous year.	Silicone foam dressing vs standard hospital treatment protocol from Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute.	Pressure ulcer reduction in patients wearing casts was possible using silicone foam dressings placed within the cast with 2/56 (3.6%) forming pressure ulcers compared to the control group incidence rate of 21/49 (42.9%).
(2012) Brindle and Wegelin [4]	Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center ICU, n = 85	Sacrum/Stage I	Quantitative prospective cohort study. Intervention group was given Mepilex® Border Sacrum dressings with standard care protocol compared to control group, which only received standard care protocol	Silicone foam dressing vs standard hospital treatment protocol from Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center	Patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were given silicone foam dressings after surgery had pressure ulcer formation incidence of 1/50 (2%) compared to the control group who did not receive the silicone foam dressing 4/35 (11.4%). The findings were not statistically significant, however, due to sample size.
(2012) Chaiken [11]	Illinois, Swedish Covenant Hospital ICU, n = 563	Sacrum/Stage I	Quantitative prospective cohort study. Patients in the study group were compared to those in the control group data collected the previous year.	Silicone foam dressing vs standard hospital treatment protocol from Swedish Covenant Hospital.	Reduction of sacral pressure ulcers was found in the intervention group with 5/273 (1.8%) incidence of pressure ulcer formation compared to 36/291 (12.3%) in the control group.
(2015) Santamaria, et al. [12]	Australia, Royal Melbourne Hospital ICU n = 313	Sacrum/ heel/Stage I	Randomized controlled trial with the intervention group receiving Mepilex® Border Sacrum and Mepilex® Heel dressings. Both groups received standard prevention strategies.	Silicone foam dressing vs standard hospital treatment protocol from Royal Melbourne Hospital.	There was a significantly decreased formation of pressure ulcers in the intervention group in comparison to the control group who received traditional wound dressing. 5/161 (3.1%) developed pressure ulcers in the intervention group vs 20/152 (13.1%) in the control group.