Summary of findings 2. Foam dressings compared with hydrocolloid dressings for treating pressure ulcers.

Foam dressings compared with hydrocolloid dressings for treating pressure ulcers
Patient or population: people of any age with an existing pressure ulcer of Category/Stage II or above Settings: any care setting Intervention: hydrocellular, hydropolymer and polyurethane foam dressings Comparison: hydrocolloid dressing
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	Heterogeneity	No of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with hydrocolloid dressing	Risk with foam dressing
Incidence of healing, short‐term follow‐up (8 weeks or less)	293 per 1000	249 per 1000 ( 158 to 393 )	RR 0.85 (0.54 to 1.34)	Chi2 = 2.12, df = 2, (P = 0.35), I2 = 6%	198 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1
Time to complete healing	Outcome not measured or reported for this comparison	Outcome not measured or reported for this comparison	n/a	‐	n/a	Outcome not measured or reported for this comparison
Adverse events, short‐term follow‐up (8 weeks or less)	91 per 1000	81 per 1000 (34 to 192)	RR 0.88 (0.37 to 2.11)	Chi2 = 0.82, df = 2, (P = 0.66), I2 = 0.0%	198 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2	A fourth RCT reported adverse events. However these data were not separated by wound type.
Quality of life	Outcome not measured or reported for this comparison	Outcome not measured or reported for this comparison	n/a	‐	n/a	Outcome not measured or reported for this comparison
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

¹Majority of evidence at very high risk of bias due to limitations in design and implementation due to lack of blinding and allocation concealment (downgraded twice); serious imprecision of results due to small sample size and wide confidence intervals (0.54 to 1.34) (downgraded once).
 ²Majority of evidence at high risk of bias due to limitations in design and implementation due to lack of blinding and allocation concealment (downgraded once); very serious imprecision of results due small sample size and wide confidence intervals (0.37 to 2.11) (downgraded twice).