ArticleCureus2020
A Comparative Study Between Two Support Surfaces for Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Healing in ICU Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective The aim of this research was to compare the effectiveness of two mattresses used in intensive care unit (ICU) high-risk patients in terms of pressure ulcers (PUs) prevention and healing. Materials and Methods The studied sample consisted of 70 consecutive patients aged 18 to 65 years hospitalized in two ICUs of a general hospital in Athens, Greece. Virtuoso Mattress System (LINET, Slaný, Czech Republic) was used in 35 patients, and standard memory foam mattress was used in the rest of participants. Patients were firstly assessed on enrollment and then every 72 hours in order to record the appearance or not of PUs, location of PUs, and stage of PUs, with the maximum follow-up not exceeding the 21 days. A number of clinical and biochemical factors, medical treatment, and vital signs were also recorded at each time point. Results Of the 70 patients, 40 (57.1%) were men, and the mean ± standard deviation age of the sample was 46.1 ± 14.5 years. The most common area of PUs was the buttocks (34.3%) followed by the shoulders (22.3%), with no statistically significant difference detected between the two groups. Moreover, the proportion of patients having PUs at stage 2 or higher was 23.8% on the third day after admission and 61.1% on the sixth day, with no difference detected between the two groups. Cox proportional hazard model revealed that the Virtuoso mattress was associated with almost 56% lower risk of developing PUs compared with standard foam mattress (HR [95% CI]: 0.44 [0.20-0.93]). The percentage of patients healed using the Virtuoso mattress was significantly lower compared with the standard foam mattress at all time points, with the results reaching statistical significance only on the 12th day after admission (7.7% vs. 66.7%; p < 0.05). Conclusions The Virtuoso mattress seems to be more effective compared with standard foam mattresses in the prevention of PUs, whereas the standard foam mattresses are more effective in PU healing process.
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.