Skip to main content
. 2021 May 10;2021(5):CD013620. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013620.pub2
Sensitivity analysis Studies Participants Statistical Method Effect Estimate
Comparison: Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces compared with foam surfaces        
Outcome: Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer        

  • Disentangling the single intervention

        
Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces compared with foam surfaces 3 2171 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.63 [0.34, 1.17]
Alternating pressure (active) low‐air‐loss surfaces compared with foam surfaces 1 76 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable

  • Fixed‐effect model used

 4 2247 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.71 [0.55, 0.93]

  • Time to pressure ulcer development considered as our primary outcome

 2   Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.41 [0.10, 1.64]

  • Post hoc analysis using pressure ulcer incidence data from Nixon 2019 only

 1 2029 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.78 [0.57, 1.05]
Comparison: Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces compared with reactive air surfaces        
Outcome: Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer        

  • Complete case data used

 6 1611 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.62 [0.90, 2.89]

  • Fixed‐effect model used

 6 1648 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) 1.72 [1.00, 2.97]

  • Time to pressure ulcer development considered as the primary outcome

 1 308 Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) 2.25 [1.05, 4.83]
Comparison: Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces compared with reactive water surfaces        
Outcome: Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer        

  • Fixed‐effect model

 2 358 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) 1.21 [0.53, 2.78]
Comparison: Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces compared with reactive fibre surfaces        
Outcome: Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer        

  • Complete case data analysed

 3 246 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.93 [0.72, 1.20]

  • Fixed‐effect model used

 3 285 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.90 [0.68, 1.20]
Comparison: Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in operating tables and subsequently on ward beds compared with reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on ward beds        
Outcome: Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer        

  • Fixed‐effect model used

 2 415 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.21 [0.06, 0.72]