Sensitivity analysis	Studies	Participants	Statistical Method	Effect Estimate
Comparison: Foam surfaces compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces
Outcome: Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer
Sensitivity analysis using fixed‐effect model	4	2247	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.41 [1.08, 1.83]
Sensitivity analysis with time to pressure ulcer incidence as the primary outcome	2		Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.46 [0.61, 9.88]
Post‐hoc sensitivity analysis using pressure ulcer incidence data from Nixon 2019 only	1	2029	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.29 [0.96, 1.74]
Comparison: Foam surfaces compared with reactive air surfaces
Outcome: Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer
Sensitivity analysis using fixed effect model	4	229	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.47 [1.40, 4.38]