Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Lovegrove, Josephine; Fulbrook, Paul; Miles, Sandra; Steele, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.aucc.2021.04.007

Cited by 15 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, further studies are needed to deliver a clinically meaningful difference in the results. This was suggested in other meta‐analyses, which showed a similar effect of prophylactic sacral protective dressings on preventing pressure injury 11‐15 . This requires further investigation and explanation because no clear rationale was found to explain these results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…This was suggested in other meta-analyses, which showed a similar effect of prophylactic sacral protective dressings on preventing pressure injury. [11][12][13][14][15] This requires further investigation and explanation because no clear rationale was found to explain these results. Well-designed studies are also needed to assess the factors including the combination of different ages, gender, and ethnicity, because our meta-analysis study could not answer whether these factors are associated with the results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…4 Numerous meta-analyses have examined the efficacy of prophylactically applied protective dressings. [11][12][13][14][15] A 2013 Cochrane review of prophylactic use of soft silicone foam dressings showed a decrease in pressure injury frequency in numerous studies, with inadequate indication because of the low quality of the comprised studies. 16 In an update to this meta-analysis, the indication was of very low and low graded for high risk of bias and high inaccuracy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in the clinical setting, these dressings are often used prophylactically for subjects at high risk of pressure injury, especially critically ill subjects, 10 and are suggested for subject transport circumstances as a real notice to health care professionals about pressure injury inhibition 4 . Numerous meta‐analyses have examined the efficacy of prophylactically applied protective dressings 11‐15 . A 2013 Cochrane review of prophylactic use of soft silicone foam dressings showed a decrease in pressure injury frequency in numerous studies, with inadequate indication because of the low quality of the comprised studies 16 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Prophylactic sacral protective dressings' effect on preventing pressure injury: A meta‐analysis

Gong¹,

2021

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of prophylactic sacral protective dressings on preventing pressure injury. A systematic literature search up to July 2021 was performed, and 11 studies included 5150 community or hospital-based adult subjects requiring care at the start of the study; 2832 of them were using sacral protective dressings and 2318 were given standard care with no sacral protective dressings. They were reporting relationships between the effects of prophylactic sacral protective dressings on preventing pressure injury. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the effects of prophylactic sacral protective dressings on preventing pressure injury using the dichotomous method with a random or fixed-effect model. Sacral protective dressings had a significantly lower incidence of pressure injuries (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.53, P < .001) compared with standard care with no sacral protective dressings in community-or hospital-based adult subjects requiring care. Sacral protective dressings had a significantly lower incidence of pressure injuries compared with standard care with no sacral protective dressings in community-or hospital-based adult subjects requiring care.Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prophylactic sacral protective dressings' effect on preventing pressure injury: A meta‐analysis

Gong¹,

2021

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One overview of reviews with a network meta-analysis (NMA), 1 5 SRs 14-18 including 2 with meta-analyses, 16,18 2 RCTs, 19,20 and 6 non-randomized studies [21][22][23][24][25][26] were included in this report.…”

Section: Summary Of Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic Support for Pressure Injuries

Vu¹,

Askin²

2022

cjht

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reactive air surfaces, alternating-pressure (active) air surfaces, and reactive gel surfaces may be more effective at preventing pressure injuries compared to foam surfaces. The clinical effectiveness of therapeutic support surfaces to prevent pressure injuries may be influenced by the care setting (e.g., long-term care, acute care, intensive care units) as well as follow-up time. An overview of reviews with a network meta-analysis did not find any significant differences between different types of support surfaces on time to pressure injury. However, limited evidence suggests there may be a difference between foam surfaces, compared to other types of foam surfaces. Specialized skin protection cushions may also help to prevent pressure injuries compared to standard foam cushions, though there may be no difference between different types of air cushions. It was unclear if there are significant differences between support surfaces for the treatment of pressure injuries. Authors of an overview of reviews stated that reactive air surfaces may be more effective than foam surfaces, but this was not statistically significant. Limited evidence was identified regarding adverse events and health-related quality of life, as well as for pediatric patients. Limited evidence was identified for support surfaces other than mattresses, beds, and overlays (e.g., cushions), as well as therapeutic small devices for prevention of pressure injuries. No studies were identified for therapeutic small devices for treatment.

show abstract