Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Aug 16;8(8):CD013761.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013761.pub2.

Beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing and treating pressure ulcers: an overview of Cochrane Reviews and network meta-analysis

Chunhu Shi  1 , Jo C Dumville  1 , Nicky Cullum  1 , Sarah Rhodes  2 , Elizabeth McInnes  3 , En Lin Goh  4 , Gill Norman  1
Affiliations

Beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing and treating pressure ulcers: an overview of Cochrane Reviews and network meta-analysis

Chunhu Shi et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Specific kinds of beds, overlays and mattresses are widely used with the aim of preventing and treating pressure ulcers.

Objectives: To summarise evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and on increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To assess the relative effects of different types of beds, overlays and mattresses for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To cumulatively rank the different treatment options of beds, overlays and mattresses in order of their effectiveness in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.

Methods: In July 2020, we searched the Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews reporting the effectiveness of beds, mattresses or overlays for preventing or treating pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. We summarised the reported evidence in an overview of reviews. Where possible, we included the randomised controlled trials from each included review in network meta-analyses. We assessed the relative effectiveness of beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing or treating pressure ulcers and their probabilities of being, comparably, the most effective treatment. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

Main results: We include six Cochrane Reviews in this overview of reviews, all at low or unclear risk of bias. Pressure ulcer prevention: four reviews (of 68 studies with 18,174 participants) report direct evidence for 27 pairwise comparisons between 12 types of support surface on the following outcomes: pressure ulcer incidence, time to pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Pressure ulcer incidence: our overview includes direct evidence for 27 comparisons that mostly (19/27) have very low-certainty evidence concerning reduction of pressure ulcer risk. We included 40 studies (12,517 participants; 1298 participants with new ulcers) in a network meta-analysis involving 13 types of intervention. Data informing the network are sparse and this, together with the high risk of bias in most studies informing the network, means most network contrasts (64/78) yield evidence of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces (e.g. static air overlays) (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.75), alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (e.g. alternating pressure air mattresses, large-celled ripple mattresses) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and reactive gel surfaces (e.g. gel pads used on operating tables) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.01) may reduce pressure ulcer incidence. The ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness is also of very low certainty for all interventions. It is unclear which treatment is best for preventing ulceration. (2) Time to pressure ulcer incidence: four reviews had direct evidence on this outcome for seven comparisons. We included 10 studies (7211 participants; 699 participants with new ulcers) evaluating six interventions in a network meta-analysis. Again, data from most network contrasts (13/15) are of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces may reduce the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.05). The ranking of all support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in terms of time to healing is uncertain. (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for three comparisons. For preventing pressure ulcers, alternating pressure air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (moderate-certainty evidence). Pressure ulcer treatment: two reviews (of 12 studies with 972 participants) report direct evidence for five comparisons on: complete pressure ulcer healing, time to complete pressure ulcer healing, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Complete pressure ulcer healing: our overview includes direct evidence for five comparisons. There is uncertainty about the relative effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on ulcer healing. The corresponding network meta-analysis (with four studies, 397 participants) had only three direct contrasts and a total of six network contrasts. Again, most network contrasts (5/6) have very low-certainty evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that more people with pressure ulcers may heal completely using reactive air surfaces than using foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We are uncertain which surfaces have the highest probability of being the most effective (all very low-certainty evidence). (2) Time to complete pressure ulcer healing: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have healed pressure ulcers compared with those using foam surfaces in long-term care settings (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use in long-term care settings (low-certainty evidence).

Authors' conclusions: Compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and may increase complete ulcer healing. Compared with foam surfaces, alternating pressure air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and are probably more cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers. Compared with foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk, particularly for people in operating rooms and long-term care settings. There are uncertainties for the relative effectiveness of other support surfaces for preventing and treating pressure ulcers, and their efficacy ranking. More high-quality research is required; for example, for the comparison of reactive air surfaces with alternating pressure air surfaces. Future studies should consider time-to-event outcomes and be designed to minimise any risk of bias.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Chunhu Shi: I received research funding from the National Institute for Health Research (Research for Patient Benefit, Evidence synthesis for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment, PB‐PG‐1217‐20006). I received support from the Tissue Viability Society to attend conferences unrelated to this work. The Doctoral Scholar Awards Scholarship and Doctoral Academy Conference Support Fund (University of Manchester) also supported a PhD and conference attendance respectively; both were unrelated to this work.

Jo Dumville: I am Chief Investigator on a National Institute for Health Research grant that funded the conduct of this review (Research for Patient Benefit, Evidence synthesis for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment, PB‐PG‐1217‐20006). This research was co‐funded by the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, and partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester.

Nicky Cullum: I am Co‐investigator on a National Institute for Health Research grant that funded the conduct of this review (Research for Patient Benefit, Evidence synthesis for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment, PB‐PG‐1217‐20006). This research was co‐funded by the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, and partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester.

My previous and current employers received research grant funding from the NHS Research and Development Programme, and subsequently the NIHR, for my participation in reviews contained in this work. The funders had no role in the conduct of these reviews. My previous employer received research grant funding from the NIHR for an RCT comparing different alternating pressure air surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention.

Sarah Rhodes: my salary is funded from three National Institute for Health Research grants and a grant from Greater Manchester Cancer.

Elizabeth McInnes: none known.

En Lin Goh: none known.

Gill Norman: my employment at the University of Manchester is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This research was co‐funded by the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.

Gill Worthy (peer reviewer) states: I have previously worked with three of the authors and performed the analysis of one of the included trials (PRESSURE).

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram
2
2
Prevention network: network plot for the base‐case network for pressure ulcer incidence outcome. We weighted node (circle) size by the number of studies reporting each intervention and weighted the thickness of the edge lines according to the inverse variance of the treatment effect estimates for the direct evidence contrast. We indicated the overall risk of bias for each direct comparison in the network diagram, using colour for three risk of bias ratings: low (green), unclear (yellow), and high (red).
3
3
Prevention network: relative effectiveness results for 78 network contrasts
4
4
Prevention network: funnel plot of the base‐case analysis for pressure ulcer incidence outcome
5
5
Time‐to‐event network: network diagram for time to pressure ulcer development outcome
6
6
Treatment network: network diagrams for pressure ulcer healing outcome
7
7
Prevention network: risk of bias summary of review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each study. Studies with asterisk contributed data for network meta‐analyses
8
8
Risk of bias assessment for each network contrast. The CINeMA tool uses the percentage contribution matrix and combines this with the risk of bias assessments of the included studies (n = 40). Each row represents a network contrast of the prevention network. For each network contrast, the CINeMA tool computes the percentage contribution from studies judged to be at low, moderate, and high risk of bias. Green bars within each row indicate the percentage contribution from studies at low risk of bias, yellow for unclear risk of bias, and red for high risk of bias. Note not all of the 40 studies contributed data to each contrast's effectiveness estimation.
9
9
Prevention network: cumulative probability plot for each support surface evaluated in the base‐case network. Cumulative probability plots show cumulative rank probabilities of each intervention being less than or equal to a given rank order. Note that SUCRA is the area under the plot for each support surface: higher SUCRA value = higher probability of being the best intervention. The closer the probability of a rank to 100% and the narrower the overlap with the ranks of other interventions, the greater the confidence in the ranking. Note predictive probabilities incorporate heterogeneity into probability estimates.
10
10
Prevention network: network diagram of post hoc sensitivity analysis of seven eligible and well defined support surfaces
11
11
Prevention network: relative effectiveness results expressed in RRs and 95% CIs for the post hoc sensitivity analysis
12
12
Prevention network: cumulative probability plot for each support surface evaluated in the post hoc sensitivity analysis. Cumulative probability plots show cumulative rank probabilities of each intervention being less than or equal to a given rank order. Note that SUCRA is the area under the plot for each support surface: higher SUCRA value = higher probability of being the best intervention. Note predictive probabilities incorporate heterogeneity into probability estimates.
13
13
Prevention network: funnel plot of the sensitivity analysis network for pressure ulcer incidence outcome
14
14
Time‐to‐event network: funnel plot of the analysis for time to pressure ulcer development outcome
15
15
Treatment network: risk of bias summary of review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each study. Studies with asterisk contributed data for network meta‐analysis.
16
16
Treatment network: funnel plot of the analysis for pressure ulcer healing outcome
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013761

References

References to included reviews

McGinnis 2014
    1. McGinnis E, Stubbs N. Pressure-relieving devices for treating heel pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 2. Art. No: CD005485. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005485.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Shi 2021a
    1. Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N, Rhodes S, Jammali-Blasi A, McInnes E. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2021, Issue 5. Art. No: CD013620. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013620.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Shi 2021b
    1. Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N, Rhodes S, McInnes E. Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2021, Issue 5. Art. No: CD013621. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013621.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Shi 2021c
    1. Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N, Rhodes S, Leung V, McInnes E. Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2021, Issue 5. Art. No: CD013622. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013622.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Shi 2021d
    1. Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N, Rhodes S, McInnes E. Alternative reactive support surfaces (non-foam and non-air-filled) for preventing pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2021, Issue 5. Art. No: CD013623. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013623.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Shi 2021e
    1. Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N, Rhodes S, Jammali-Blasi A, Ramsden V, McInnes E. Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2021, Issue 5. Art. No: CD013624. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013624.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

References to excluded reviews

Greenwood 2017
    1. Greenwood CE, Nelson EA, Nixon J, McGinnis E. Pressure-relieving devices for preventing heel pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 5. Art. No: CD011013. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011013.pub2] - DOI
McInnes 2015
    1. McInnes E, Jammali-Blasi A, Bell-Syer SE, Dumville JC, Middleton V, Cullum N. Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 9. Art. No: CD001735. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001735.pub5] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
McInnes 2018
    1. McInnes E, Jammali-Blasi A, Bell-Syer SE, Leung V. Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 10. Art. No: CD009490. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009490.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Additional references

Brignardello‐Petersen 2019
    1. Brignardello-Petersen R, Murad MH, Walter SD, McLeod S, Carrasco-Labra A, Rochwerg B, et al. GRADE approach to rate the certainty from a network meta-analysis: avoiding spurious judgments of imprecision in sparse networks. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2019;105:60-7. - PubMed
Caldwell 2005
    1. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005;331(7521):897-900. - PMC - PubMed
Chaimani 2013
    1. Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One 2013;8:e76654. - PMC - PubMed
Chaimani 2015
    1. Chaimani A, Salanti G. Visualizing assumptions and results in network meta-analysis: the network graphs package. Stata Journal 2015;15(4):905–50.
Cipriani 2013
    1. Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR, Salanti G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013;159(2):130-7. - PubMed
Clark 2011
    1. Clark M. Technology update: understanding support surfaces. Wounds International 2011;2(3):17-21.
Cullum 2016
    1. Cullum N, Buckley H, Dumville J, Hall J, Lamb K, Madden M, et al. Wounds Research for Patient Benefit: A 5-year Programme of Research. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library, 2016. - PubMed
Deeks 2020
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Demarré 2015
    1. Demarré L, Van Lancker A, Van Hecke A, Verhaeghe S, Grypdonck M, Lemey J, et al. The cost of prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: a systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2015;52(11):1754-74. - PubMed
Dias 2014
    1. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Caldwell DM, Lu G, Ades AE. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 4: Inconsistency in Networks of Evidence Based on Randomised Controlled Trials. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2014. - PubMed
EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA 2019
    1. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance (EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA). Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Quick Reference Guide. Emily Haesler (Ed.). EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA, 2019.
Espejo 2018
    1. Espejo E, Andrés M, Borrallo RM, Padilla E, Garcia-Restoy E, Bella F, Complex Wounds Working Group. Bacteremia associated with pressure ulcers: a prospective cohort study. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases: Official Publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology 2018;37(5):969-75. - PMC - PubMed
Essex 2009
    1. Essex HN, Clark M, Sims J, Warriner A, Cullum N. Health-related quality of life in hospital inpatients with pressure ulceration: assessment using generic health-related quality of life measures. Wound Repair and Regeneration 2009;17(6):797-805. - PubMed
Glenny 2005
    1. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D’Amico R, et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England) 2005;9:1-134, iii-iv. - PubMed
Gorecki 2009
    1. Gorecki C, Brown JM, Nelson EA, Briggs M, Schoonhoven L, Dealey C, et al. Impact of pressure ulcers on quality of life in older patients: a systematic review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2009;57(7):1175-83. - PubMed
Gorecki 2013
    1. Gorecki C, Brown JM, Cano S, Lamping DL, Briggs M, Coleman S, et al. Development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with pressure ulcers: the PU-QOL instrument. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2013;11:95. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Gray 2018
    1. Gray TA, Rhodes S, Atkinson RA, Rothwell K, Wilson P, Dumville JC, et al. Opportunities for better value wound care: a multiservice, cross-sectional survey of complex wounds and their care in a UK community population. BMJ Open 2018;8(3):e019440. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Guest 2018
    1. Guest JF, Fuller GW, Vowden P, Vowden KR. Cohort study evaluating pressure ulcer management in clinical practice in the UK following initial presentation in the community: costs and outcomes. BMJ Open 2018;8(7):e021769. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Herdman 2011
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research 2011;21(10):1727-36. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 1996
    1. Higgins JP, Whitehead A. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 1996;15:2733-49. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557-60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2017
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Higgins 2020
    1. Higgins JP, Eldridge S, Li T (editors). Chapter 23: Including variants on randomized trials. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Kew 2014
    1. Kew KM, Dias S, Cates CJ. Long-acting inhaled therapy (beta-agonists, anticholinergics and steroids) for COPD: a network meta‐analysis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 3. Art. No: CD010844. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010844.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Kirkham 2018
    1. Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Chan AW, Gamble C, Dwan KM, Williamson PR. Outcome reporting bias in trials: a methodological approach for assessment and adjustment in systematic reviews. BMJ 2018;362:k3802. - PMC - PubMed
Krahn 2013
    1. Krahn U, Binder H, König J. A graphical tool for locating inconsistency in network meta-analyses. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2013;13:35. - PMC - PubMed
Lexchin 2003
    1. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326(7400):1167-70. - PMC - PubMed
Lu 2004
    1. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Statistics in Medicine 2004;23:3105-24. - PubMed
NCT03351049
    1. NCT03351049. An RCT on support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention. ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT03351049 (first received 22 November 2017).
Nguyen 2015
    1. Nguyen KH, Chaboyer W, Whitty JA. Pressure injury in Australian public hospitals: a cost-of-illness study. Australian Health Review 2015;39(3):329-36. - PubMed
NICE 2014
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Pressure ulcers: prevention and management. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg179 (accessed 08 October 2019). - PubMed
Nikolakopoulou 2020
    1. Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JP, Papakonstantinou T, Chaimani A, Del Giovane C, Egger M, et al. CINeMA: an approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLoS Medicine 2020;17:e1003082. - PMC - PubMed
NPIAP 2016
    1. National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP). NPUAP Pressure Injury Stages; 2016. Available at cdn.ymaws.com/npuap.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/npuap_pressure_injury_st....
NPIAP S3I 2019
    1. National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) Support Surface Standards Initiative (S3I). Terms and Definitions Related to Support Surfaces; November 2019. Available at cdn.ymaws.com/npiap.com/resource/resmgr/website_version_terms_and_de.pdf.
Page 2020
    1. Page MJ, Higgins JP, Sterne JA. Chapter 13: Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Parmar 1998
    1. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17(24):2815-34. - PubMed
Peters 2008
    1. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61(10):991-6. - PubMed
Pollock 2017
    1. Pollock A, Campbell P, Brunton G, Hunt H, Estcourt L. Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overview. Systematic Reviews 2017;6:145. - PMC - PubMed
Riley 2017
    1. Riley RD, Jackson D, Salanti G, Burke DL, Price M, Kirkham J, et al. Multivariate and network meta-analysis of multiple outcomes and multiple treatments: rationale, concepts, and examples. BMJ 2017;358:j3932. - PMC - PubMed
Salanti 2008
    1. Salanti G, Higgins JP, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2008;17:279-301. - PubMed
Salanti 2011
    1. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64:163-71. - PubMed
Salanti 2014
    1. Salanti G, Giovane CD, Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Higgins JP. Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9(7):e99682. - PMC - PubMed
Schoonhoven 2007
    1. Schoonhoven L, Bousema Mente T, Buskens E, on behalf of the prePURSE-study group. The prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients in the Netherlands: a prospective inception cohort study. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2007;44(6):927-35. - PubMed
Schulz 1995
    1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273(5):408-12. - PubMed
Shi 2018a
    1. Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N. Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention: a network meta-analysis. PLoS One 2018;13:e0192707. - PMC - PubMed
Shi 2018b
    1. Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N. Skin status for predicting pressure ulcer development: a systematic review and meta-analyses. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2018;87:14-25. - PubMed
Song 2011
    1. Song F, Xiong T, Parekh-Bhurke S, Loke YK, Sutton AJ, Eastwood AJ, et al. Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of competing interventions: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2011;343:d4909. - PMC - PubMed
Theisen 2012
    1. Theisen S, Drabik A, Stock S. Pressure ulcers in older hospitalised patients and its impact on length of stay: a retrospective observational study. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2012;21(3-4):380-7. - PubMed
Tierney 2007
    1. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials 2007;8:16. - PMC - PubMed
Turner 2012
    1. Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. International Journal of Epidemiology 2012;41(3):818-27. - PMC - PubMed
Vanderwee 2005
    1. Vanderwee K, Grypdonck MH, Defloor T. Effectiveness of an alternating pressure air mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Age and Ageing 2005;34(3):261-7. - PubMed
Veroniki 2013
    1. Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Higgins JP, Salanti G. Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. International Journal of Epidemiology 2013;42(1):332-45. - PMC - PubMed
White 2015
    1. White IR. Network meta-analysis. Stata Journal 2015;15:951–85.
Whiting 2016
    1. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2016;69:225-34. - PMC - PubMed
Woodhead 2016
    1. Woodhead M. 80% of China's clinical trial data are fraudulent, investigation finds. BMJ 2016;355:i5396. - PubMed
World Health Organization 2019
    1. World Health Organization. EH90 Pressure ulceration. ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (Version: 04/2019). Available at icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f45... (accessed 17 February 2020).
Wounds International 2010
    1. Wounds International. International Review. Pressure Ulcer Prevention: Pressure, Shear, Friction and Microclimate in Context. A Consensus Document. London (UK): Wounds International, 2010.
Yepes‐Nuñez 2019
    1. Yepes-Nuñez JJ, Li SA, Guyatt G, Jack SM, Brozek JL, Beyene J, et al. Development of the summary of findings table for network meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2019;115:1-3. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Shi 2020f
    1. Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N, Rhodes S, McInnes E. Beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing and treating pressure ulcers: an overview of Cochrane reviews and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 10. Art. No: CD013761. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013761] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types