BACKGROUND: Evidence on the comparative effectiveness between commercially available support surfaces in preventing pressure ulcer development is lacking. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of alternating air pressure mattresses (AAPMs) versus static air mattresses to prevent pressure ulcers in elderly hospitalized patients and to provide evidence for clinical practice.
METHODS: The electronic databases of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science will be searched in April 2022 using the following key terms: "pressure ulcers," "support surface," and "pressure mattresses," for all relevant studies. Only English publications are included. The primary outcome is the incidence of pressure ulcers; secondary outcomes include patient satisfaction, cost, and other bedridden complications. The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be independently used to evaluate the risk of bias of included randomized cohort studies by 2 reviewers. A modified version of the Downs and Black tool is adopted to evaluate the quality of nonrandomized cohort studies. All outcomes are pooled on random-effect model.
RESULTS: We hypothesized that group with AAPMs will provide better therapeutic benefits compared with control group.
CONCLUSIONS: It is worthy to critically review the evidence of the assessment of AAPMs and static air mattresses to inform clinical practice.
OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/MYPZ2.
