-
Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism Jan 2021The aim of this systematic review was to identify the best footwear and insole design features for offloading the plantar surface of the foot to prevent foot ulceration... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this systematic review was to identify the best footwear and insole design features for offloading the plantar surface of the foot to prevent foot ulceration in people with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. We searched multiple databases for published and unpublished studies reporting offloading footwear and insoles for people with diabetic neuropathy and nonulcerated feet. Primary outcome was foot ulcer incidence; other outcome measures considered were any standardized kinetic or kinematic measure indicating loading or offloading the plantar foot. Fifty-four studies, including randomized controlled studies, cohort studies, case-series, and a case-controlled and cross-sectional study were included. Three meta-analyses were conducted and random-effects modelling found peak plantar pressure reduction of arch profile (37 kPa (MD, -37.5; 95% CI, -72.29 to -3.61; < .03), metatarsal addition (35.96 kPa (MD, -35.96; 95% CI, -57.33 to -14.60; < .001) and pressure informed design 75.4 kPa (MD, -75.4 kPa; 95% CI, -127.4 to -23.44 kPa; < .004).The remaining data were presented in a narrative form due to heterogeneity. This review highlights the difficulty in differentiating the effect of different insole and footwear features in offloading the neuropathic diabetic foot. However, arch profiles, metatarsal additions and apertures are effective in reducing plantar pressure. The use of pressure analysis to enhance the effectiveness of the design of footwear and insoles, particularly through modification, is recommended.
Topics: Diabetic Foot; Diabetic Nephropathies; Equipment Design; Foot Orthoses; Humans; Shoes; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33532602
DOI: 10.1002/edm2.132 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Sep 2023Evidence-based pressure injury prevention and management is a global health service priority. Low uptake of pressure injury guidelines leads to compromised patient... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence-based pressure injury prevention and management is a global health service priority. Low uptake of pressure injury guidelines leads to compromised patient outcomes. Understanding clinicians' and patients' views on the barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines and mapping the identified barriers and facilitators to the Theoretical Domains Framework and behaviour change techniques will inform an end-user and theoretically informed intervention to improve guideline uptake in the acute care setting.
OBJECTIVES
To synthesise quantitative and qualitative evidence on i) hospital clinicians' and inpatients' perceptions and experiences of evidence-based pressure injury practices and ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines.
DESIGN
A convergent integrated mixed-methods systematic review was conducted using the JBI approach.
DATA SOURCE
English language peer-reviewed studies published from 2009 to August 2022 were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Library.
REVIEW METHODS
Included studies reported: i) acute care hospital clinicians' and patients' perceptions and experiences of evidence-based pressure injury practices and ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal. Quantitative data was transformed into qualitised data, then thematically synthesised with qualitative data, comparing clinicians' and patients' views. Barriers and facilitators associated with each main theme were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and allocated to relevant behaviour change techniques.
RESULTS
Fifty-five out of 14,488 studies of variable quality (29 quantitative, 22 qualitative, 4 mixed-methods) met the inclusion criteria. Four main themes represent factors thought to influence the implementation of evidence-based guidelines: 1) nurse-led multidisciplinary care, 2) patient participation in care, 3) practicability of implementation and 4) attitudes towards pressure injury prevention and management. Most barriers identified by clinicians were related to the third theme, whilst for patients, there were multiple barriers under theme 2. Barriers were mainly mapped to the Knowledge domain and Environmental Context and Resources domain and were matched to the behaviour change techniques of "instruction on how to perform a behaviour" and "restructuring the physical environment". Most facilitators mentioned by clinicians and patients were related to themes 1 and 2, respectively, and mapped to the Environmental Context and Resources domain. All patient-related attitudes in theme 4 were facilitators.
CONCLUSIONS
These review findings highlight the most influential factors related to implementing evidence-based pressure injury care from clinicians' and patients' views and mapping these factors to the Theoretical Domains Framework and behaviour change techniques has contributed to developing a stakeholder-tailored implementation intervention in acute care settings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42021250885.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Inpatients
PubMed: 37453248
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104557 -
JMIR Medical Informatics Mar 2021Pressure injury (PI) is a common and preventable problem, yet it is a challenge for at least two reasons. First, the nurse shortage is a worldwide phenomenon. Second,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure injury (PI) is a common and preventable problem, yet it is a challenge for at least two reasons. First, the nurse shortage is a worldwide phenomenon. Second, the majority of nurses have insufficient PI-related knowledge. Machine learning (ML) technologies can contribute to lessening the burden on medical staff by improving the prognosis and diagnostic accuracy of PI. To the best of our knowledge, there is no existing systematic review that evaluates how the current ML technologies are being used in PI management.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this review was to synthesize and evaluate the literature regarding the use of ML technologies in PI management, and identify their strengths and weaknesses, as well as to identify improvement opportunities for future research and practice.
METHODS
We conducted an extensive search on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Wanfang database, the VIP database, and the China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to identify relevant articles. Searches were performed in June 2020. Two independent investigators conducted study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).
RESULTS
A total of 32 articles met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of those articles (38%) reported using ML technologies to develop predictive models to identify risk factors, 11 (34%) reported using them in posture detection and recognition, and 9 (28%) reported using them in image analysis for tissue classification and measurement of PI wounds. These articles presented various algorithms and measured outcomes. The overall risk of bias was judged as high.
CONCLUSIONS
There is an array of emerging ML technologies being used in PI management, and their results in the laboratory show great promise. Future research should apply these technologies on a large scale with clinical data to further verify and improve their effectiveness, as well as to improve the methodological quality.
PubMed: 33688846
DOI: 10.2196/25704 -
Journal of Clinical Nursing Jul 2019To explore the effectiveness of interventions aimed at pressure ulcer (PU) prevention in long-term older people care facilities (LOPC).
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
To explore the effectiveness of interventions aimed at pressure ulcer (PU) prevention in long-term older people care facilities (LOPC).
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers cause suffering for patients and constitute a major financial burden. Although most PUs could be prevented, their number has remained high. To avoid unnecessary suffering and costs, PU prevention must be effective.
DESIGN
A systematic review.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in six electronic databases PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The inclusion criteria were: (a) study published in 2005-2017, (b) intervention with pre- and post-tests, focusing on PU prevention, (c) implemented in LOPC facilities, (d) persons >65 years as study population, and (e) outcomes reported as PU incidence or prevalence or healing time. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute's MAStARI critical appraisal checklist. The data were analysed with narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
The review included eighteen studies. The study designs were RCTs (n = 10), comparable cohort or case-control studies (n = 3), and descriptive or case series (n = 5). PU incidence in LOPC facilities decreased by using computerised decision-making support systems, PU prevention programmes, repositioning or advanced cushions. PU prevalence decreased with PU prevention programmes, by using advanced mattresses and overlays, or by adding protein and energy supplements to diet.
CONCLUSIONS
There are many ways to prevent PUs in LOPC facilities; no single effective way can be identified. One-third of the preventive interventions in LOPC facilities were effective. However, systematic evidence from randomised trials on preventive interventions of PUs in LOPC settings is still lacking.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
The findings can be used in practice for selecting and in research for developing effective preventive interventions of PUs in LOPC facilities.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Decision Support Systems, Clinical; Homes for the Aged; Humans; Long-Term Care; Nursing Homes; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 30589987
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14767 -
International Wound Journal Aug 2023The aim of this study was to summarise the best evidence for the prevention and control of pressure ulcer at the support surface based on the site and stage of the...
The aim of this study was to summarise the best evidence for the prevention and control of pressure ulcer at the support surface based on the site and stage of the pressure ulcer in order to reduce the incidence of pressure ulcer and improve the quality of care. In accordance with the top-down principle of the 6 S model of evidence-based resources, evidence from domestic and international databases and websites on the prevention and control of pressure ulcer on support surfaces, including randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, evidence-based guidelines, and evidence summaries, was systematically searched for the period from January 2000 to July 2022. Evidence grading based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Health Care Centre Evidence Pre-grading System (2014 version), Australia. The outcomes mainly embraced 12 papers, including three randomised controlled trials, three systematic reviews, three evidence-based guidelines, and three evidence summaries. The best evidence summarised included a total of 19 recommendations in three areas: type of support surface selection assessment, use of support surfaces, and team management and quality control.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Beds; Incidence; Australia; Quality Control
PubMed: 36891753
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14109 -
Nursing Open Nov 2022Pressure injuries (PIs) are one of the most common complications related to immobility, especially in hospitalized patients, which lead to increased morbidity, infection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Pressure injuries (PIs) are one of the most common complications related to immobility, especially in hospitalized patients, which lead to increased morbidity, infection and overall decreased quality of life. Arginine supplementation may prevent the development of PIs. This study has summarized the findings of studies on the effect of arginine supplementation on PI healing.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
This study was conducted on online electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Embase to identify relevant clinical trial studies up to September 2020. The pooled effect size of arginine supplement effects on PI was evaluated with standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis with 196 patients. PIs were significantly improved with Arginine supplementation (SMD: -0.6; CI 95%: -0.9 to -0.3, I : 72.5%, p = .001). Subgroup analysis showed that administering Arginine supplement more than 15 g/day had more beneficial effects on the healing of PIs (SMD: -2.8; CI 95%: -4.08 to -1.52, I : 54.7%, p = .138).
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that the administration of Arginine supplement in patients with PIs can accelerate the healing of this type of ulcer. Arginine is a supplement, and primary treatment is still needed to optimize PI healing. Therefore, arginine supplementation in addition to primary treatment seems to be an appropriate approach for the healing of PIs. Further well-designed studies are necessary to prevent the development of PIs compared to their primary treatment.
Topics: Humans; Arginine; Dietary Supplements; Enteral Nutrition; Quality of Life; Wound Healing; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 34170617
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.974 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2014A pressure ulcer (PU), also referred to as a 'pressure injury', 'pressure sore', or 'bedsore' is defined as an area of localised tissue damage that is caused by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A pressure ulcer (PU), also referred to as a 'pressure injury', 'pressure sore', or 'bedsore' is defined as an area of localised tissue damage that is caused by unrelieved pressure, friction or shearing forces on any part of the body. PUs commonly occur in patients who are elderly and less mobile, and carry significant human and economic impacts. Immobility and physical inactivity are considered to be major risk factors for PU development and the manual repositioning of patients in hospital or long-term care is a common pressure ulcer prevention strategy.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review were to:1) assess the effects of repositioning on the prevention of PUs in adults, regardless of risk or in-patient setting;2) ascertain the most effective repositioning schedules for preventing PUs in adults; and3) ascertain the incremental resource consequences and costs associated with implementing different repositioning regimens compared with alternate schedules or standard practice.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of the relevant randomised controlled trials: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 06 September 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to August, Week 4, 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 2013, Week 35); EBESCO CINAHL (1982 to 30 August 2013); and the reference sections of studies that were included in the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any repositioning schedule or different patient positions and measured PU incidence in adults in any setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs and one economic study representing a total of 502 randomised participants from acute and long-term care settings. Two trials compared the 30º and 90º tilt positions using similar repositioning frequencies (there was a small difference in frequency of overnight repositioning in the 90º tilt groups between the trials). The third RCT compared alternative repositioning frequencies.All three studies reported the proportion of patients developing PU of any grade, stage or category. None of the trials reported on pain, or quality of life, and only one reported on cost. All three trials were at high risk of bias.The two trials of 30º tilt vs. 90º were pooled using a random effects model (I² = 69%) (252 participants). The risk ratio for developing a PU in the 30º tilt and the standard 90º position was very imprecise (pooled RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.97, P=0.62, very low quality evidence). This comparison is underpowered and at risk of a Type 2 error (only 21 events).In the third study, a cluster randomised trial, participants were randomised between 2-hourly and 3-hourly repositioning on standard hospital mattresses and 4 hourly and 6 hourly repositioning on viscoelastic foam mattresses. This study was also underpowered and at high risk of bias. The risk ratio for pressure ulcers (any category) with 2-hourly repositioning compared with 3-hourly repositioning on a standard mattress was imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.16, very low quality evidence). The risk ratio for pressure ulcers (any category) was compatible with a large reduction and no difference between 4-hourly repositioning and 6-hourly repositioning on viscoelastic foam (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02, very low quality evidence).A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data derived from one of the included parallel RCTs compared 3-hourly repositioning using the 30º tilt overnight with standard care consisting of 6-hourly repositioning using the 90º lateral rotation overnight. In this evaluation the only included cost was nursing time. The intervention was reported to be cost saving compared with standard care (nurse time cost per patient €206.6 vs €253.1, incremental difference €-46.5; 95%CI: €-1.25 to €-74.60).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Repositioning is an integral component of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment; it has a sound theoretical rationale, and is widely recommended and used in practice. The lack of robust evaluations of repositioning frequency and position for pressure ulcer prevention mean that great uncertainty remains but it does not mean these interventions are ineffective since all comparisons are grossly underpowered. Current evidence is small in volume and at risk of bias and there is currently no strong evidence of a reduction in pressure ulcers with the 30° tilt compared with the standard 90º position or good evidence of an effect of repositioning frequency. There is a clear need for high-quality, adequately-powered trials to assess the effects of position and optimal frequency of repositioning on pressure ulcer incidence.The limited data derived from one economic evaluation means it remains unclear whether repositioning every 3 hours using the 30º tilt is less costly in terms of nursing time and more effective than standard care involving repositioning every 6 hours using a 90º tilt.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Beds; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Middle Aged; Patient Positioning; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 24700291
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009958.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Pressure ulcers, also known as bed sores or pressure sores, are localised areas of tissue damage arising due to excess pressure and shearing forces. Education of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers, also known as bed sores or pressure sores, are localised areas of tissue damage arising due to excess pressure and shearing forces. Education of healthcare staff has been recognised as an integral component of pressure ulcer prevention. These educational programmes are directed towards influencing behaviour change on the part of the healthcare professional, to encourage preventative practices with the aim of reducing the incidence of pressure ulcer development.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of educational interventions for healthcare professionals on pressure ulcer prevention.
SEARCH METHODS
In June 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, that evaluated the effect of any educational intervention delivered to healthcare staff in any setting to prevent pressure ulceration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for eligibility. We obtained full versions of potentially relevant studies and two authors independently screened these against the inclusion criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review: four RCTs and one cluster-RCT. The study characteristics differed in terms of healthcare settings, the nature of the interventions studied and outcome measures reported. The cluster-RCT, and two of the RCTs, explored the effectiveness of education delivered to healthcare staff within residential or nursing home settings, or nursing home and hospital wards, compared to no intervention, or usual practices. Educational intervention in one of these studies was embedded within a broader, quality improvement bundle. The other two individually randomised controlled trials explored the effectiveness of educational intervention, delivered in two formats, to nursing staff cohorts.Due to the heterogeneity of the studies identified, pooling was not appropriate and we have presented a narrative overview. We explored a number of comparisons (1) education versus no education (2) components of educational intervention in a number of combinations and (3) education delivered in different formats. There were three primary outcomes: change in healthcare professionals' knowledge, change in healthcare professionals' clinical behaviour and incidence of new pressure ulcers.We are uncertain whether there is a difference in health professionals' knowledge depending on whether they receive education or no education on pressure ulcer prevention (hospital group: mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.00 to 1.60; 10 participants; nursing home group: MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.77 to 1.37; 10 participants). This was based on very low-certainty evidence from one study, which we downgraded for serious study limitations, indirectness and imprecision.We are uncertain whether there is a difference in pressure ulcer incidence with the following comparisons: training, monitoring and observation, versus monitoring and observation (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.05; 345 participants); training, monitoring and observation, versus observation alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.43; 325 participants) or, monitoring and observation versus observation alone (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.88; 232 participants). This was based on very low-certainty evidence from one study, which we downgraded for very serious study limitations and imprecision. We are uncertain whether multilevel intervention versus attention control makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence. The report presented insufficient data to enable further interrogation of this outcome.We are uncertain whether education delivered in different formats such as didactic education versus video-based education (MD 4.60, 95% CI 3.08 to 6.12; 102 participants) or e-learning versus classroom education (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; 18 participants), makes any difference to health professionals' knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention. This was based on very low-certainty evidence from two studies, which we downgraded for serious study limitations and study imprecision.None of the included studies explored our other primary outcome: change in health professionals' clinical behaviour. Only one study explored the secondary outcomes of interest, namely, pressure ulcer severity and patient and carer reported outcomes (self-assessed quality of life and functional dependency level respectively). However, this study provided insufficient information to enable our independent assessment of these outcomes within the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain whether educating healthcare professionals about pressure ulcer prevention makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or to nurses' knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention. This is because the included studies provided very low-certainty evidence. Therefore, further information is required to clarify the impact of education of healthcare professionals on the prevention of pressure ulcers.
Topics: Health Personnel; Humans; Incidence; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29800486
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011620.pub2 -
BMC Complementary and Alternative... Oct 2013In traditional medicine Cinnamon is considered a remedy for respiratory, digestive and gynaecological ailments. In-vitro and in-vivo studies from different parts of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In traditional medicine Cinnamon is considered a remedy for respiratory, digestive and gynaecological ailments. In-vitro and in-vivo studies from different parts of the world have demonstrated numerous beneficial medicinal effects of Cinnamomum zeylanicum (CZ). This paper aims to systematically review the scientific literature and provide a comprehensive summary on the potential medicinal benefits of CZ.
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic review was conducted in the following databases; PubMed, Web of Science, SciVerse Scopus for studies published before 31st December 2012. The following keywords were used: "Cinnamomum zeylanicum", "Ceylon cinnamon", "True cinnamon" and "Sri Lankan cinnamon". To obtain additional data a manual search was performed using the reference lists of included articles.
RESULTS
The literature search identified the following number of articles in the respective databases; PubMed=54, Web of Science=76 and SciVerse Scopus=591. Thirteen additional articles were identified by searching reference lists. After removing duplicates the total number of articles included in the present review is 70. The beneficial health effects of CZ identified were; a) anti-microbial and anti-parasitic activity, b) lowering of blood glucose, blood pressure and serum cholesterol, c) anti-oxidant and free-radical scavenging properties, d) inhibition of tau aggregation and filament formation (hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease), e) inhibitory effects on osteoclastogenesis, f) anti-secretagogue and anti-gastric ulcer effects, g) anti-nociceptive and anti-inflammatory activity, h) wound healing properties and i) hepato-protective effects. The studies reported minimal toxic and adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS
The available in-vitro and in-vivo evidence suggests that CZ has many beneficial health effects. However, since data on humans are sparse, randomized controlled trials in humans will be necessary to determine whether these effects have public health implications.
Topics: Animals; Cinnamomum zeylanicum; Databases, Factual; Humans; Medicine, Traditional; Plant Extracts
PubMed: 24148965
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-13-275 -
International Wound Journal Jun 2018The aims of this study were to identify, assess, and summarise available evidence about the effectiveness of static air mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. The... (Review)
Review
The aims of this study were to identify, assess, and summarise available evidence about the effectiveness of static air mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. The primary outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcers. Secondary outcomes included costs and patient comfort. This study was a systematic review. Six electronic databases were consulted: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed (Medline), CINAHL (EBSCOhost interface), Science direct, and Web of Science. In addition, a hand search through reviews, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of the included studies was performed to identify additional studies. Potential studies were reviewed and assessed by 2 independent authors based on the title and abstract. Decisions regarding inclusion or exclusion of the studies were based on a consensus between the authors. Studies were included if the following criteria were met: reporting an original study; the outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcer categories I to IV when using a static air mattress overlay and/or in comparison with other pressure-redistribution device(s); and studies published in English, French, and Dutch. No limitation was set on study setting, design, and date of publication. The methodological quality assessment was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Tool. Results were reported in a descriptive way to reflect the exploratory nature of the review. The searches included 13 studies: randomised controlled trials (n = 11) and cohort studies (n = 2). The mean pressure ulcer incidence figures found in the different settings were, respectively, 7.8% pressure ulcers of categories II to IV in nursing homes, 9.06% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in intensive care settings, and 12% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in orthopaedic wards. Seven comparative studies reported a lower incidence in the groups of patients on a static air mattress overlay. Three studies reported a statistical (P < .1) lower incidence compared with a standard hospital mattress (10 cm thick, density 35 kg/m ), a foam mattress (15 cm thick), and a viscoelastic foam mattress (15 cm thick). No significant difference in incidence, purchase costs, and patient comfort was found compared with dynamic air mattresses. This review focused on the effectiveness of static air mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. There are indications that these mattress overlays are more effective in preventing pressure ulcers compared with the use of a standard mattress or a pressure-reducing foam mattress in nursing homes and intensive care settings. However, interpretation of the evidence should be performed with caution due to the wide variety of methodological and/or reporting quality levels of the included studies.
Topics: Beds; Humans; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 29504266
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12870