3. Support surface associated patient comfort results reported in studies that were not analysed.

Study ID	Results		Comments
Comparison: foam surfaces vs another type of foam surfaces
Collier 1996	Range of patient comfort results Omnifoam (n = 11): 3 to 8 Softform (n = 12): 8 to 11 Transfoam (n = 10): 2 to 8	Range of patient comfort results Clinifloat (n = 11): 5 to 7 NHS Standard (n = 9): 0 to 0 STM5 (n = 10): 9 to 9 Therarest (n = 13): 8 to 8 Vapourlux (n = 14): 10 to 10	Patient comfort assessed using a standardised question and visual rating scale (1 = poor, 10 = excellent)
Gray 1994	Softform Very uncomfortable 0/90 Uncomfortable 0/90 Adequate 6/90 Comfortable 62/90 Very comfortable 11/90 No response 11/90 Comfortable or very comfortable 81.1%	Standard foam surfaces Very uncomfortable 0/80 Uncomfortable 2/80 Adequate 44/80 Comfortable 26/80 Very comfortable 0/80 No response 8/80 Comfortable or very comfortable 32.5%	Patient comfort assessed using a standardised question and a visual rating scale: very uncomfortable, uncomfortable, adequate, comfortable, very comfortable, no response obtained.
Gray 2000	Transfoamwave Very uncomfortable 0/47 Uncomfortable 0/47 Adequate 3/47 Comfortable 26/47 Very comfortable 18/47	Transfoam Very uncomfortable 0/48 Uncomfortable 1/48 Adequate 2/48 Comfortable 34/48 Very comfortable 11/48	Comfort ratings, on a 5‐point scale from ‘very uncomfortable’ to ‘very comfortable'.
Whittingham 1999	Data not presented	Data not presented	Comfort ratings similar for all 6 mattresses initially; however this altered by the end of the 12 months.