Study | Reason for exclusion |
---|---|
Ashby 2012 | Although the study was an RCT, it had a mixed‐dressing control arm with foam dressings being 1 of 3 dressing options based on health professional and participant choice rather than randomisation |
Avanzi 2000 | Paper incomplete and review authors unable to access it |
Banks 1994b | PU classification system not stated. Review authors unable to access original data |
Banks 1994c | PU classification system not stated. Review authors unable to access original data |
Banks 1997 | PU classification system not stated. Review authors unable to access original data |
Brown‐Etris 1996 | The intervention dressing (Transorbant) has dry hydrogel and foam layers. We excluded this study as the hydrogel layer was closest to the skin, and the foam was an outer layer that provided cushioning |
Diehm 2005 | Not a RCT or cluster‐RCT |
Münter 2006 | No subgroup analysis of participants with PUs. Review authors unable to access original data |
Oleske 1986 | Not a RCT or cluster‐RCT |
Palao i Domenech 2008 | No subgroup analysis of participants with PUs. Unable to contact study authors |
Parish 2008 | Not a RCT or cluster‐RCT |
Piatkowski 2012 | Administered foam dressing to participants on both trial arms |
Reynolds 2004 | PU classification system not stated. Unable to contact study author |
Romanelli 2009 | Subanalysis of larger study by Palao i Domenech 2008. Does not include participants with PUs |
Wagstaff 2014 | While this trial compared two foams for the treatment of PUs, their application occurred as a component of negative pressure wound therapy following surgical debridement rather than as a wound dressing |
Zimny 2003 | Participants had neuropathic foot ulcers, not PUs. |
PU: pressure ulcer; RCT: randomised controlled trial