Comparison 1. PPM dressing regimen versus other dressing regimen.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Proportion of participants healed (short term ‐ 8 weeks)	2	207	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.73 [0.34, 1.58]
1.1 PMM versus foam	1	187	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.87 [0.30, 2.48]
1.2 PMM‐silver versus hydrocolloid/silver	1	20	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.6 [0.19, 1.86]
2 Proportion of participants healed (medium term ‐ 12 weeks)	4	192	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.28 [0.95, 1.71]
2.1 PMM + BWC versus BWC	1	73	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.46 [0.83, 2.58]
2.2 PMM + BWC + alginate versus alginate	1	40	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.2 [0.44, 3.30]
2.3 PMM‐silver + foam versus foam	1	30	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.57 [0.84, 2.92]
2.4 PMM‐silver + hydrocolloid versus hydrocolloid	1	49	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.07 [0.69, 1.67]
3 Proportion of participants with 1 or more adverse events at 2‐12 weeks	5	363	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.03 [0.75, 1.42]
3.1 Short term (2‐8 weeks)	3	264	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.04 [0.75, 1.45]
3.2 Medium term (12 weeks)	2	99	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.31, 2.99]
4 Proportion of participants with pain at 2‐12 weeks	5		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
4.1 PMM versus hydrogel	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.2 PMM + foam versus foam	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.3 PMM + foam versus BWC	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.4 PMM versus foam	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.5 PMM + BWC versus BWC	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.6 PMM + BWC + alginate versus alginate	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5 Proportion of participants with infection at 2‐12 weeks	5	349	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.69 [0.29, 1.68]
5.1 PMM versus hydrogel (2 weeks)	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.24 [0.01, 4.87]
5.2 PMM‐silver versus hydrocolloid + silver (8 weeks)	1	20	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5.3 PMM versus foam (8 weeks)	1	177	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.15 [0.40, 3.30]
5.4 PMM + BWC versus BWC (12 weeks)	1	51	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.08 [0.00, 1.40]
5.5 PMM‐silver + foam versus foam (12 weeks)	1	30	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.8 [0.27, 2.41]
6 Sensitivity analysis ‐ available case ‐ proportion of participants healed	7		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
6.1 Short term (4‐8 weeks)	2	197	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.72 [0.33, 1.56]
6.2 Medium term (12 weeks all studies)	4	165	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.26 [0.96, 1.64]
6.3 Long term (over 24 weeks)	1	100	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.80, 1.41]
7 Subgroup analysis: (+/‐) silver ‐ proportion of participants healed medium term	4		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
7.1 Silver in PMM arm	2	79	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.22 [0.85, 1.75]
7.2 No silver in PMM arm	2	113	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.39 [0.85, 2.29]