This study aimed to evaluate the effect of Stop Pediatric Pressure Injury (SPPI) Short Intervention training sessions given to pediatric intensive care nurses on their level of knowledge and on pediatric pressure injuries.

The study, conducted with a randomized controlled trial design, included 55 pediatric intensive care nurses (experimental group = 27, control group = 28). The nurses in the experimental group received the SPPI Short Intervention training. Data were collected using the Nurse Data Collection Form, the SPPI Short Intervention Evaluation Form, and the Pediatric Pressure Injury Assessment Form. The data obtained were evaluated using chi-squared test, the dependent and independent samples t-test, the Mann-Whitney U test, and the two-way repeated measures ANOVA.

The SPPI Short Intervention training led to a significant increase in the pediatric pressure injury knowledge levels of the experimental group (p < .01). In patients cared for by the experimental group, the prevalence of injuries decreased by 50 %, and the number of severe injury stages also decreased. The Braden Q and PUSH scores of the patients cared for by both the experimental and control groups decreased significantly (p < .05).

The SPPI Short Intervention training was found to be effective in increasing the level of pediatric intensive care unit nurses' knowledge of pediatric pressure injury. Providing pediatric nurses with training that includes the stop pediatric pressure injury training is recommended as an effective approach to prevent and manage pediatric pressure injury.

Pediatric intensive care unit nurses should be trained to become competent in dealing with pediatric pressure injury.

Pressure ulcers are localized injuries to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both, and are common in older and immobile people, people with diabetes, vascular disease, or malnutrition, as well as those who require intensive or palliative care. People with pressure ulcers often suffer from severe pain and exhibit social avoidance behaviours. The prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers involves strategies to optimize hydration, circulation, and nutrition. Adequate nutrient intake can reduce the risk factor of malnutrition and promote wound healing in existing pressure ulcers. However, it is unclear which nutrients help prevent and treat pressure ulcers. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.

To evaluate the benefits and harms of nutritional interventions (special diets, supplements) for preventing and treating pressure ulcers in people with or without existing pressure ulcers compared to standard diet or other nutritional interventions.

We used extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was in May 2022.

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with or without existing pressure ulcers, that compared nutritional interventions aimed at preventing or treating pressure ulcers with standard diet or other types of nutritional interventions.

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome for prevention studies was the proportion of participants who developed new (incident) pressure ulcers. For treatment studies, our primary outcomes were time to complete pressure ulcer healing, number of people with healed pressure ulcers, size and depth of pressure ulcers, and rate of pressure ulcer healing. Secondary outcomes were side effects, costs, health-related quality of life and acceptability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

We included 33 RCTs with 7920 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from 6993 participants. Pressure ulcer prevention Eleven studies (with 12 arms) compared six types of nutritional interventions for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Compared to standard diet, energy, protein and micronutrient supplements may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants developing a pressure ulcer (energy, protein and micronutrient supplements 248 per 1000, standard diet 269 per 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; 3 studies, 1634 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to standard diet, protein supplements may result in little to no difference in pressure ulcer incidence (protein 21 per 1000, standard diet 28 per 1000; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4 studies, 4264 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the gastrointestinal side effects of these supplements (protein 109 per 1000, standard diet 155 per 1000; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 7.96; 2 studies, 140 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of protein, arginine, zinc and antioxidants; L-carnitine, L-leucine, calcium, magnesium and vitamin D; EPA, GLA and antioxidants; disease-specific supplements on pressure ulcer incidence when compared to standard diet (1 study each; very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons). Pressure ulcer treatment Twenty-four studies (with 27 arms) compared 10 types of nutritional interventions or supplements for treatment of pressure ulcers. Compared to standard diet, energy, protein and micronutrient supplements may slightly increase the number of healed pressure ulcers (energy, protein and micronutrients 366 per 1000, standard diet 253 per 1000; RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.85; 3 studies, 577 participants, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these supplements on gastrointestinal side effects. Compared to standard diet, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of protein, arginine, zinc and antioxidant supplements on pressure ulcer healing (pressure ulcer area: mean difference (MD) 2 cm² smaller, 95% CI 4.54 smaller to 0.53 larger; 2 studies, 71 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence on side effects of these supplements is very uncertain. Compared to standard diet, supplements with arginine and micronutrients may not increase the number of healed pressure ulcers, but the evidence suggests a slight reduction in pressure ulcer area (MD 15.8% lower, 95% CI 25.11 lower to 6.48 lower; 2 studies, 231 participants, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about changes in pressure ulcer scores, acceptability, and side effects of these supplements. Compared to placebo, collagen supplements probably improve the mean change in pressure ulcer area (MD 1.81 cm² smaller, 95% CI 3.36 smaller to 0.26 smaller; 1 study, 74 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these supplements on side effects. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of vitamin C, different doses of arginine; EPA, GLA (special dietary fatty acids) and antioxidants; protein; a specialized amino acid mixture; ornithine alpha-ketoglutarate and zinc supplements on pressure ulcer healing (1 or 2 studies each; very low-certainty evidence).

The benefits of nutritional interventions with various compositions for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment are uncertain. There may be little or no difference compared to standard nutrition or placebo. Nutritional supplements may not increase gastrointestinal side effects, but the evidence is very uncertain. Larger studies with similar nutrient compositions would reduce these uncertainties. No study investigated the effects of special diets (e.g. protein-enriched diet, vegetarian diet) on pressure ulcer incidence and healing.

Casting is an essential treatment for neuro-orthopedic conditions in children with cognitive, sensory, and communicational disabilities. However, a main side-effect is the development of pressure injuries resulting in additional (wound) therapies and prolongation of the hospital stay. The primary aim of our study was to investigate the potential of objective pressure measurements in casts to assess the risk for pressure injury development.

Five pediatric healthy participants were included in this study. We measured the global and the local compression force at body sites prone to pressure injury development for different body positions and the transfer in-between in a cast equipped with pressure sensors. These conditions resulted in partial or full body weight loading.

The global maximum compression force was affected significantly by body postures with partial and full loading of the cast and during transfer. The local compression force significantly correlated with the global compression force at the heel and instep area. In conclusion, the integration of sensing technologies into casts bears a high potential for early recognition of critical conditions inside the cast and inducing preventive measures in the at-risk population.

This qualitative study aimed to identify nurses' and allied health professionals' perceptions and experiences of providing hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) prevention in a paediatric tertiary hospital in Australia, as well as understand the perceived barriers and facilitators to preventing HAPI.

A qualitative, exploratory study of hospital professionals was undertaken using semi-structured interviews between February 2022 and January 2023.

Two frameworks, the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), were used to give both theoretical and pragmatic guidance. Participants included 19 nursing and allied health professionals and data analysis was informed by the framework approach.

Analysis revealed nine core themes regarding professionals' beliefs about the barriers and facilitators to HAPI prevention practices across seven TDF domains. Themes included HAPI prevention skills and education, family-centred care, automated feedback and prompts, allocation and access to equipment, everybody's responsibility, prioritizing patients and clinical demands, organizational expectations and support, integrating theory and reality in practice and emotional influence.

These findings provide valuable insights into the barriers and facilitators that impact paediatric HAPI prevention and can help identify and implement strategies to enhance evidence-based prevention care and prevent HAPI in paediatric settings.

Overcoming barriers through evidence-based interventions is essential to reduce HAPI cases, improve patient outcomes, and cut healthcare costs. The findings have practical implications, informing policy and practice for improved preventive measures, education, and staffing in paediatric care, ultimately benefiting patient well-being and reducing HAPIs.

No patient or public contribution. The focus of the study is on healthcare professionals and their perspectives and experiences in preventing HAPIs in paediatric patients. Therefore, the involvement of patients or the public was not deemed necessary for achieving the specific research objectives.

Pediatric critical care nursing is a key pillar in patient care and outcomes for children who are ill and injured. Tremendous advances have occurred in pediatric critical care and nursing. This article provides an overview of the key advances in pediatric critical care nursing through the decades.

To lengthen the days between electroencephalogram electrode-related pressure injury (EERPI) to 100 EERPI-free days in 6 months of study implementation with a goal to maintain 200 EERPI-free days thereafter (≤1 EERPI event/year).

This quality improvement study took place in a level IV neonatal ICU over three epochs spanning 2 years: epoch 1 or baseline (January-June 2019), epoch 2 or implementation of intervention (July-December 2019), and epoch 3 or sustainment (January-December 2020). A daily electroencephalogram (EEG) skin assessment tool, introduction in practice of a flexible hydrogel EEG electrode, and successive rapid-cycle staff-education sessions were key interventions of the study.

Seventy-six infants were monitored for 214 continuous EEG (cEEG) days, of which six (13.2%) developed EERPI in epoch 1. Eighty infants were monitored for 193 cEEG days, of which two (2.5%) developed EERPI in epoch 2. One hundred thirty-nine infants were monitored for 338 cEEG days, and none developed EERPI in epoch 3. There was no statistical difference with respect to the median cEEG days among study epochs. A G-chart of EERPI-free days showed an increase in EERPI-free days from an average of 34 days in epoch 1 to 182 days in epoch 2 and 365 days (or zero harm) in epoch 3. Skin erythema from EEG electrodes was noted during the study.

The structured study interventions eliminated EERPI events in infants monitored with cEEG. Preventive intervention at the cEEG-electrode level coupled with skin assessment successfully reduced EERPIs in neonates.

To validate the Glamorgan Scale and compare its predictive ability in assessing pressure injury risk among patients in a pediatric ICU (PICU) with that of the Braden Q Scale.

A prospective cohort study was performed to validate the Glamorgan Scale and compare its predictive ability with the Braden Q Scale in a PICU population. A total of 83 patients admitted in the PICU between February and July 2020 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study, leading to 639 measurements. The authors tested the psychometric properties of the Glamorgan Scale to validate whether the characteristics of the original version were preserved. To this end, reliability (internal consistency) and concurrent and predictive validity (sensitivity and specificity) were assessed. For the predictive comparison, the authors performed the same tests with the Braden Q Scale.

The predictive validity, as assessed by the receiver operator characteristic curve and calculation of the area under the curve, showed satisfactory performance for the Glamorgan Scale (0.77; CI, 0.72-0.82); the Braden Q Scale values were similar (0.78; CI 0.73-0.84). The Spearman correlation coefficient showed a strong correlation between the total scores of the Glamorgan Scale (ρ = -0.76; P < .01), corroborating its validation.

The Glamorgan Scale was validated and showed good accuracy and consistency for pressure injury risk assessment in critically ill pediatric patients in Brazil. Its accuracy was similar to that of the Braden Q Scale.

Early mobilisation of critically ill adults has been proven effective and is safe and feasible for critically ill children. However, barriers and perceived benefits of paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) staff involvement in mobilising critically ill children are largely unknown. In this study, we explored the barriers and perceived benefits regarding early mobilisation of critically ill children as perceived by PICU staff.

A cross-sectional survey study among staff from seven PICUs in the Netherlands has been carried out.

Two hundred and fifteen of the 641 health care professionals (33.5%) who were invited to complete a questionnaire responded, of whom 159 (75%) were nurses, 40 (19%) physicians, and 14 (6%) physical therapists. Respondents considered early mobilisation potentially beneficial to shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation (86%), improve wake/sleep rhythm (86%) and shorten the length of stay in the PICU (85%). However, staff were reluctant to mobilize patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (63%), and patients with traumatic brain injury (49%). Perceived barriers to early mobilisation were hemodynamic instability (78%), risk of dislocation of lines/tubes (74%), and level of sedation (62%). In total, 40.3% of PICU nurses stated that physical therapists provided enough support in their PICU, but 84.6% of the physical therapists believed support was sufficient.

Participating PICU staff considered early mobilisation as potentially beneficial in improving patient outcomes, although barriers were noted in certain patient groups.

We identified barriers to early mobilisation which should be addressed in implementation research projects in order to make early mobilisation in critically ill children work.

Pressure ulcer (PU), also called pressure injury, is localized damage to the skin and underlying soft tissues, usually over bony prominences, as a result of sustained mechanical loads applied to the tissues. However, in many situations, complete off-loading of sacral PUs is not possible. Minimising the exposure of wounds and their surroundings to elevated mechanical loads is crucial for healing. We for the first time reported the application of Meipicang in the prevention and treatment of intraoperative pressure ulcers in elderly ICU patients with severe illness. We found that the pressure ulcer risk score (20.15 ± 2.17) in the dressing group after intervention was higher than that (17.42 ± 3.62) in the regular group. The incidence of pressure sores in the dressing group was 3.77% lower than the 18.88% in the regular group. The psychological concern score (31.41 ± 3.15) of the dressing group was higher than that (26.92 ± 3.43) of the regular group. The trust score (29.57 ± 2.61) of the dressing group was higher than the score (24.28 ± 2.29) of the regular group. The score of physiological problems in the dressing group (34.69 ± 3.82) is higher than that in the regular group (29.88 ± 3.54). The skin complication rate of the dressing group was 5.56% lower than that of the regular group (22.64%). The comfort score (92.46 ± 4.15) of the dressing group was higher than that (80.59 ± 5.43) of the regular group. The nursing satisfaction score (94.53 ± 3.72) of the dressing group was higher than that (81.79 ± 4.61) of the regular group. To conclude, in this study, we found that the Meipicang dressing can reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in ICU patients with severe ICU and improve the comfort and nursing satisfaction of elderly ICU patients with severe ICU, which is worthy of promotion.

With decreasing mortality in PICUs, a growing number of survivors experience long-lasting physical impairments. Early physical rehabilitation and mobilization during critical illness are safe and feasible, but little is known about the prevalence in PICUs. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of rehabilitation for critically ill children and associated barriers.

National 2-day point prevalence study.

Eighty-two PICUs in 65 hospitals across the United States.

All patients admitted to a participating PICU for greater than or equal to 72 hours on each point prevalence day.

None.

The primary outcome was prevalence of physical therapy- or occupational therapy-provided mobility on the study days. PICUs also prospectively collected timing of initial rehabilitation team consultation, clinical and patient mobility data, potential mobility-associated safety events, and barriers to mobility. The point prevalence of physical therapy- or occupational therapy-provided mobility during 1,769 patient-days was 35% and associated with older age (adjusted odds ratio for 13-17 vs < 3 yr, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5-3.1) and male gender (adjusted odds ratio for females, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95). Patients with higher baseline function (Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category, ≤ 2 vs > 2) less often had rehabilitation consultation within the first 72 hours (27% vs 38%; p < 0.001). Patients were completely immobile on 19% of patient-days. A potential safety event occurred in only 4% of 4,700 mobility sessions, most commonly a transient change in vital signs. Out-of-bed mobility was negatively associated with the presence of an endotracheal tube (adjusted odds ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.1-0.2) and urinary catheter (adjusted odds ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.1-0.6). Positive associations included family presence in children less than 3 years old (adjusted odds ratio, 4.55; 95% CI, 3.1-6.6).

Younger children, females, and patients with higher baseline function less commonly receive rehabilitation in U.S. PICUs, and early rehabilitation consultation is infrequent. These findings highlight the need for systematic design of rehabilitation interventions for all critically ill children at risk of functional impairments.

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers.

To assess the effects of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.

In November 2019, 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.

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to alternating pressure (active) air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses.

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.

We included 32 studies (9058 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 37.2 to 87.0 years (median: 69.1 years). Participants were largely from acute care settings (including accident and emergency departments). We synthesised data for six comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus: foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces used in the operating room followed by foam surfaces used on the ward bed, and another type of alternating pressure air surface. Of the 32 included studies, 25 (78.1%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.

pressure ulcer incidence Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.17; I² = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants; low-certainty evidence). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds may reduce the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.76; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 415 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of people developing new pressure ulcers between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and the following surfaces, as all these comparisons have very low-certainty evidence: (1) reactive water surfaces; (2) reactive fibre surfaces; and (3) reactive air surfaces. The comparisons between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces are presented narratively. Overall, all comparisons suggest little to no difference between these surfaces in pressure ulcer incidence (7 studies, 2833 participants; low-certainty evidence). Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for three comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer development is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the risk of developing new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.64; I² = 86%; 2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For the comparison with reactive air surfaces, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may have a higher risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer than those treated with reactive air surfaces over 14 days' follow-up (HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.83; 1 study, 308 participants). Neither of the two studies with time to ulcer incidence data suggested a difference in the risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer over 60 days' follow-up between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces. Secondary outcomes The included studies have data on (1) support-surface-associated patient comfort for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; (2) adverse events for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; and (3) health-related quality of life outcomes for the comparison involving foam surfaces. However, all these outcomes and comparisons have low or very low-certainty evidence and it is uncertain whether there are any differences in these outcomes. Included studies have data on cost effectiveness for two comparisons. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (1 study, 2029 participants) and that alternating pressure (active) air mattresses are probably more cost-effective than overlay versions of this technology for people in acute care settings (1 study, 1971 participants).

Current evidence is uncertain about the difference in pressure ulcer incidence between using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and other surfaces (reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and reactive air surfaces). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk compared with foam surfaces and reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds. People using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may be more likely to develop new pressure ulcers over 14 days' follow-up than those treated with reactive air surfaces in the nursing home setting; but as the result is sensitive to the choice of outcome measure it should be interpreted cautiously. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than reactive foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future studies should include time-to-event outcomes and assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

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

To assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on pressure ulcer healing in people with pressure ulcers of any stage, in any setting.

In November 2019, 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.

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to pressure-redistributing beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses that were applied for treating pressure ulcers.

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.

We included 13 studies (972 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 72 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 64.0 to 86.5 years (median: 82.7 years) and all studies recruited people with existing pressure ulcers (the baseline ulcer area size ranging from 4.2 to 18.6 cm2,median 6.6 cm2). Participants were recruited from acute care settings (six studies) and community and long-term care settings (seven studies). Of the 13 studies, three (224 participants) involved surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be classified. Additionally, six (46.2%) of the 13 studies presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias. We synthesised data for four comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus foam surfaces; reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces; reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and a comparison between two types of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces. We summarise key findings for these four comparisons below. (1) Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus foam surfaces: we are uncertain if there is a difference between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces in the proportion of participants whose pressure ulcers completely healed (two studies with 132 participants; the reported risk ratio (RR) in one study was 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 3.58). There is also uncertainty for the outcomes of patient comfort (one study with 83 participants) and adverse events (one study with 49 participants). These outcomes have very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. (2) Reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference in the proportion of participants with completely healed pressure ulcers between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). When time to complete pressure ulcer healing is considered using a hazard ratio, data from one small study (84 participants) suggests a greater hazard for complete ulcer healing on reactive air surfaces (hazard ratio 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). These results are sensitive to the choice of outcome measure so should be interpreted as uncertain. We are also uncertain whether there is any difference between these surfaces in patient comfort responses (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in adverse events (2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence that reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use (1 study, 87 participants). Included studies did not report health-related quality of life. (3) Reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference between reactive water surfaces and foam surfaces in the proportion of participants with healed pressure ulcers (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.63; 1 study, 101 participants) and in adverse events (1 study, 120 participants). All these have very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, patient comfort, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. (4) Comparison between two types of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference between Nimbus and Pegasus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in the proportion of participants with healed pressure ulcers, in patient comfort responses and in adverse events: each of these outcomes had four studies (256 participants) but very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness.

We are uncertain about the relative effects of most different pressure-redistributing surfaces for pressure ulcer healing (types directly compared are alternating pressure air surfaces versus foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces, reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and Nimbus versus Pegasus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces). There is also uncertainty regarding the effects of these different surfaces on the outcomes of comfort and adverse events. However, people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have pressure ulcers completely healed than those using foam surfaces over 37.5 days' follow-up, and reactive air surfaces may cost more for each ulcer-free day than foam surfaces. Future research in this area could consider the evaluation of alternating pressure air surfaces versus foam surfaces as a high priority. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Reactive air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) can be used for preventing pressure ulcers.

To assess the effects of reactive air beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.

In November 2019, 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.

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to reactive air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses that were applied for preventing pressure ulcers.

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a reactive air surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then we recorded and described the concerned study but did not included it in further data analyses.

We included 17 studies (2604 participants) in this review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average participant age ranged from 56 to 87 years (median: 72 years). Participants were recruited from a wide range of care settings with the majority being acute care settings. Almost all studies were conducted in the regions of Europe and America. Of the 17 included studies, two (223 participants) compared reactive air surfaces with surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be classified. We analysed data for five comparisons: reactive air surfaces compared with (1) alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (seven studies with 1728 participants), (2) foam surfaces (four studies with 229 participants), (3) reactive water surfaces (one study with 37 participants), (4) reactive gel surfaces (one study with 66 participants), and (5) another type of reactive air surface (two studies with 223 participants). Of the 17 studies, seven (41.2%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.

Pressure ulcer incidence Reactive air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.96; I2 = 25%; 4 studies, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is a difference in the proportions of participants developing a new pressure ulcer on reactive air surfaces compared with: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (6 studies, 1648 participants); reactive water surfaces (1 study, 37 participants); reactive gel surfaces (1 study, 66 participants), or another type of reactive air surface (2 studies, 223 participants). Evidence for all these comparisons is of very low certainty. Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for two comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer incidence is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), low-certainty evidence suggests that in the nursing home setting, people on reactive air surfaces may be less likely to develop a new pressure ulcer over 14 days' of follow-up than people on alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.96; 1 study, 308 participants). It is uncertain if there is a difference in the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers between two types of reactive air surfaces (1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the included studies have data on this outcome for three comparisons. We could not pool any data as comfort outcome measures differed between included studies; therefore a narrative summary is provided. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort responses between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces over the top of an alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants), and between those using reactive air surfaces and those using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (4 studies, 1364 participants). Evidence for these two comparisons is of very low certainty. It is also uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort responses between two types of reactive air surfaces (1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: there were data on this outcome for one comparison: it is uncertain if there is a difference in adverse events between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The included studies have no data for health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness for all five comparisons.

Current evidence is uncertain regarding any differences in the relative effects of reactive air surfaces on ulcer incidence and patient comfort, when compared with reactive water surfaces, reactive gel surfaces, or another type of reactive air surface. Using reactive air surfaces may reduce the risk of developing new pressure ulcers compared with using foam surfaces. Also, using reactive air surfaces may reduce the risk of developing new pressure ulcers within 14 days compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in people in a nursing home setting. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and adjudicators of the photographs being blinded to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Foam surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers.

To assess the effects of foam beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.

In November 2019, 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.

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to foam beds, mattresses or overlays. Comparators were any beds, mattresses or overlays.

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a foam surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses.

We included 29 studies (9566 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 101 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 47.0 to 85.3 years (median: 76.0 years). Participants were mainly from acute care settings. We analysed data for seven comparisons in the review: foam surfaces compared with: (1) alternating pressure air surfaces, (2) reactive air surfaces, (3) reactive fibre surfaces, (4) reactive gel surfaces, (5) reactive foam and gel surfaces, (6) reactive water surfaces, and (7) another type of foam surface. Of the 29 included studies, 17 (58.6%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.

pressure ulcer incidence Low-certainty evidence suggests that foam surfaces may increase the risk of developing new pressure ulcers compared with (1) alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 2.95; I2 = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants), and (2) reactive air surfaces (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.54; I2 = 25%; 4 studies, 229 participants). We are uncertain regarding the difference in pressure ulcer incidence in people treated with foam surfaces and the following surfaces: (1) reactive fibre surfaces (1 study, 68 participants); (2) reactive gel surfaces (1 study, 135 participants); (3) reactive gel and foam surfaces (1 study, 91 participants); and (4) another type of foam surface (6 studies, 733 participants). These had very low-certainty evidence. Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer development for two comparisons. When time to ulcer development is considered using hazard ratios, the difference in the risk of having new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between foam surfaces and alternating pressure air surfaces is uncertain (2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two further studies comparing different types of foam surfaces also reported time-to-event data, suggesting that viscoelastic foam surfaces with a density of 40 to 60 kg/m3 may decrease the risk of having new pressure ulcers over 11.5 days' follow-up compared with foam surfaces with a density of 33 kg/m3 (1 study, 62 participants); and solid foam surfaces may decrease the risk of having new pressure ulcers over one month's follow-up compared with convoluted foam surfaces (1 study, 84 participants). Both had low-certainty evidence. There was no analysable data for the comparison of foam surfaces with reactive water surfaces (one study with 117 participants). Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the review contains data for three comparisons for this outcome. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort measure between foam surfaces and alternating pressure air surfaces (1 study, 76 participants; very low-certainty evidence); foam surfaces and reactive air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and different types of foam surfaces (4 studies, 669 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: the review contains data for two comparisons for this outcome. We are uncertain about differences in adverse effects between foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (3 studies, 2181 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between foam surfaces and reactive air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life: only one study reported data on this outcome. It is uncertain if there is a difference (low-certainty evidence) between foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in health-related quality of life measured with two different questionnaires, the EQ-5D-5L (267 participants) and the PU-QoL-UI (233 participants). Cost-effectiveness: one study reported trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces in preventing pressure ulcer incidence (2029 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

Current evidence suggests uncertainty about the differences in pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse events and health-related quality of life between using foam surfaces and other surfaces (reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces, reactive foam and gel surfaces, or reactive water surfaces). Foam surfaces may increase pressure ulcer incidence compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive air surfaces. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and by blinding adjudicators of the photographs to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Pressure ulcers (also known as injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Reactive surfaces that are not made of foam or air cells can be used for preventing pressure ulcers.

To assess the effects of non-foam and non-air-filled reactive beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any other support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.

In November 2019, 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.

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to non-foam or non-air-filled reactive beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses used.

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a non-foam or non-air-filled surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses.

We included 20 studies (4653 participants) in this review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 198 participants). The average participant age ranged from 37.2 to 85.4 years (median: 72.5 years). Participants were recruited from a wide range of care settings but were mainly from acute care settings. Almost all studies were conducted in Europe and America. Of the 20 studies, 11 (2826 participants) included surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be fully classified. We synthesised data for the following 12 comparisons: (1) reactive water surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (three studies with 414 participants), (2) reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 117 participants), (3) reactive water surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 37 participants), (4) reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 87 participants), (5) reactive fibre surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (four studies with 384 participants), (6) reactive fibre surfaces versus foam surfaces (two studies with 228 participants), (7) reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds (two studies with 415 participants), (8) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 74 participants), (9) reactive gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 135 participants), (10) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 113 participants), (11) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 166 participants) and (12) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 91 participants). Of the 20 studies, 16 (80%) presented findings which were considered to be at high overall risk of bias.

Pressure ulcer incidence We did not find analysable data for two comparisons: reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (14/205 (6.8%)) may increase the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (3/210 (1.4%) (risk ratio 4.53, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 15.65; 2 studies, 415 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For all other comparisons, it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of participants developing new pressure ulcers as all data were of very low certainty. Included studies did not report time to pressure ulcer incidence for any comparison in this review. Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the included studies provide data on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: there is evidence on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in adverse events between reactive gel surfaces followed by foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (one study with 198 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find any health-related quality of life or cost-effectiveness evidence for any comparison in this review.

Current evidence is generally uncertain about the differences between non-foam and non-air-filled reactive surfaces and other surfaces in terms of pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse effects, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds may increase the risk of having new pressure ulcers compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and adjudicators of the photographs being blinded to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Children can have non-healing wounds due to a wide range of pathologies, including epidermolysis bullosa (EB), pilonidal disease and Stevens-Johnson syndrome, with some causes being iatrogenic, including extravasation injuries and medical device-related hospital-acquired pressure ulcers. Furthermore, paediatric wounds are vastly different from adult wounds and therefore require a different treatment approach. While there are numerous types of dressings, topical remedies, and matrices with high-tier evidence to support their use in adults, evidence is scarce in the neonatal and paediatric age groups. The purpose of this review is to discuss the basic principles in paediatric wound management, as well as to present new treatment findings published in the literature to date. The benefits and risks of using different types of debridement are discussed in this review. Various topical formulations are also described, including the need to use antibiotics judiciously.

Databases were searched for relevant sources including Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and DynaMed. Search terms used included 'wound care', 'wound management', 'paediatrics', 'children', 'skin substitutes', and 'grafts'. Additionally, each treatment and disease entity was searched for relevant sources, including, for example: 'Apligraf', 'dermagraft', 'Manuka honey', 'antibiotic', 'timolol', and 'negative pressure wound therapy' (NPWT).

Amniotic membrane living skin equivalent is a cellular matrix that has been reportedly successful in treating paediatrics wounds and is currently under investigation in randomised clinical trials. Helicoll is an acellular matrix, which shows promise in children with recessive dystrophic EB. NPWT may be used as a tool to accelerate wound closure in children; however, caution must be taken due to limited evidence to support its safety and efficacy in the paediatric patient population. Integra has been reported as a useful adjunctive treatment to NPWT as both may act synergistically. Hospitalised children and neonates frequently have pressure ulcers, which is why prevention in this type of wound is paramount.

Advancements in wound care are rapidly expanding. Various treatments for non-healing wounds in paediatric and neonatal patients have been reported, but high tier evidence in these populations is scarce. We hope to shed light on existing evidence regarding the different therapeutic modalities, from debridement techniques and dressing types to tissue substitutes and topical remedies. There have been promising results in many studies to date, but RCTs involving larger sample sizes are necessary, in order to determine the specific role these innovative agents play in paediatric wounds and to identify true safety and efficacy.