↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
49 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
140 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
650 Mendeley
Title
Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001735.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth McInnes, Asmara Jammali-Blasi, Sally EM Bell-Syer, Jo C Dumville, Victoria Middleton, Nicky Cullum

Abstract

Pressure ulcers (i.e. bedsores, pressure sores, pressure injuries, decubitus ulcers) are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue. They are common in the elderly and immobile, and costly in financial and human terms. Pressure-relieving support surfaces (i.e. beds, mattresses, seat cushions etc) are used to help prevent ulcer development. This systematic review seeks to establish:(1) the extent to which pressure-relieving support surfaces reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with standard support surfaces, and,(2) their comparative effectiveness in ulcer prevention. In April 2015, for this fourth update we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 April 2015) which includes the results of regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any support surface for prevention of pressure ulcers, in any patient group or setting which measured pressure ulcer incidence. Trials reporting only proxy outcomes (e.g. interface pressure) were excluded. Two review authors independently selected trials. Data were extracted by one review author and checked by another. Where appropriate, estimates from similar trials were pooled for meta-analysis. For this fourth update six new trials were included, bringing the total of included trials to 59.Foam alternatives to standard hospital foam mattresses reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in people at risk (RR 0.40 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74). The relative merits of alternating- and constant low-pressure devices are unclear. One high-quality trial suggested that alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context.Pressure-relieving overlays on the operating table reduce postoperative pressure ulcer incidence, although two trials indicated that foam overlays caused adverse skin changes. Meta-analysis of three trials suggest that Australian standard medical sheepskins prevent pressure ulcers (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.32 to 0.97).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: People at high risk of developing pressure ulcers should use higher-specification foam mattresses rather than standard hospital foam mattresses. The relative merits of higher-specification constant low-pressure and alternating-pressure support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers are unclear, but alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context. Medical grade sheepskins are associated with a decrease in pressure ulcer development. Organisations might consider the use of some forms of pressure relief for high risk patients in the operating theatre.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 650 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 640 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 107 16%
Student > Bachelor 105 16%
Researcher 72 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 9%
Student > Postgraduate 46 7%
Other 145 22%
Unknown 119 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 209 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 170 26%
Engineering 40 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 2%
Social Sciences 13 2%
Other 66 10%
Unknown 139 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2021.
All research outputs
#613,860
of 17,648,139 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,510
of 11,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,000
of 245,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#44
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,648,139 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 245,970 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.