Trial reportInternational wound journal2019
A prospective, randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the fluid immersion simulation system vs an air-fluidised bed system in the acute postoperative management of pressure ulcers: A midpoint study analysis.
Trial report in International wound journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Alternative reactive support surfaces (non-foam and non-air-filled) for preventing pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Effectiveness of a fluid immersion simulation system in the acute post-operative management of pressure ulcers: A prospective, randomised controlled trial.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2022Trial
- A prospective, randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the fluid immersion simulation system vs an air-fluidised bed system in the acute postoperative management of pressure ulcers: A midpoint study analysis.International wound journal · 2019Trial
- A Prospective, Single-Center Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness of ClimateCare in the Acute Postoperative Management of Pressure Ulcers.Health science reports · 2025Article
- [Influence factors of poor efficacy after flap repair operation in patients with pressure ulcers].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The use of pressure-offloading support surfaces is considered the standard of care for pressure ulcers (PUs) by most surgeons. The fluid immersion simulation system (FIS) has shown significant results in previous studies. We compared it, for the first time, with a representative air-fluidised bed (AFB) for outcomes related to post-surgical flap closures. This trial was performed over 25 months, in which 40 subjects between 18 and 85 years of age with ≤2 PUs and history of <3 surgical closures underwent reconstruction by one surgeon. Subjects were randomly assigned to either treatment group for 2 weeks after closure. The primary endpoint was success of closure after the study period. Secondary endpoints included incidence of complications and nursing and patient acceptability of the device. The FIS group included 19 subjects, and the AFB group included 21. Flap failure rate was similar between groups (15% vs 17%; P = .99). The Minor complications rate, particularly dehiscence, was higher in the FIS group (66.7% vs 15%; P = .02). Nurse and patient self-reported acceptability had better mean numeric scores in the FIS compared with AFB (nurse: 1.5 vs 1.9; P = .12; patient: 1.9 vs 2.2; P = .14). Further analysis will be conducted to gain better insight on the FIS as an alternative treatment for PUs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.