Skip to main content
. 2021 May 6;2021(5):CD013621. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013621.pub2

Summary of findings 3. Foam surfaces compared with reactive fibre surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention.

Foam surfaces compared to reactive fibre surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention
Patient or population: pressure ulcer prevention
Setting: acute care setting
Intervention: foam surfaces
Comparison: reactive fibre surfaces
Outcomes Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) Relative effect
(95% CI) № of participants
(studies) Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE) Comments
Risk with reactive fibre surfaces Risk with foam surfaces
Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer
Follow‐up: unspecified Study population RR 1.17
(0.64 to 2.14) 68
(1 RCT) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowa,b It is uncertain if there is a difference in the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer between foam surfaces and reactive fibre surfaces.
353 per 1,000 413 per 1,000
(226 to 755)
Time to pressure ulcer development The included study did not report this outcome.
Support surface associated patient comfort The included study did not report this outcome.
All reported adverse events The included study did not report this outcome.
Health‐related quality of life The included study did not report this outcome.
Cost‐effectiveness The included study did not report this outcome.
*The risk in the intervention group (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 evidenceHigh certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate certainty: 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 certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

aDowngraded twice for unclear risk of bias in all domains.
bDowngraded twice for imprecision as the OIS was not met and the wide confidence interval crossed RRs = 0.75 and 1.25.