Comparison 4. Comparisons between CLP supports.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Pressure ulcer incidence	11	2138	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.45 [0.36, 0.56]
1.1 Optima vs SFM	1	40	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.06 [0.00, 0.99]
1.2 Sofflex vs ROHO	1	84	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.63 [0.16, 2.47]
1.3 Gel mattress vs air‐filled overlay	1	66	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.8 [0.24, 2.72]
1.4 Static air mattress vs water mattress	1	37	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.43 [0.04, 4.29]
1.5 Foam overlay vs Silicore overlay	1	68	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.17 [0.64, 2.14]
1.6 Sheepskin vs no sheepskin (Including all pressure ulcers regardless of Grade)	3	1424	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.48 [0.36, 0.64]
1.7 Foam support surface vs no support	1	70	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.16 [0.05, 0.49]
1.8 Heel‐lift suspension boot and various support surfaces vs support surfaces alone	1	239	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.26 [0.12, 0.53]
1.9 Inflated static overlay vs microfluid static overlay or LAL dyname mattress	1	110	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.33 [0.07, 1.58]
2 Pressure ulcer incidence	3	1424	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.59 [0.33, 1.05]
2.1 Sheepskin vs no sheepskin (grade 2 + pressure ulcers only)	3	1424	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.59 [0.33, 1.05]