Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40432635›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Prophylactic Interventions for Heel Pressure Ulcers in Critically Ill Patients Admitted to an Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mayumi Koyanagi, Hideaki Sakuramoto, Kohei Kajiwara, Ayako Fukushima, Shun Yoshihara, Megumi Mukoyama, Megumi Horinouchi, Aiko Mihara, Yuta Imamura

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Mayumi KoyanagiDepartment of Nursing, Fukuoka Tokushukai Hospital, Kasuga, JPN.
Hideaki SakuramotoDivision of Faculty Development and Nursing, Kindai University, Osaka, JPN.
Kohei KajiwaraFaculty of Nursing, Shimonoseki City University, Shimonoseki, JPN.
Ayako FukushimaDepartment of Critical Care and Disaster Nursing, Hokkaido University of Science, Sapporo, JPN.
Shun YoshiharaFaculty of Nursing, Japanese Red Cross Kyushu International College of Nursing, Munakata, JPN.
Megumi MukoyamaDepartment of Nursing, Japanese Red Cross Fukuoka Hospital, Fukuoka, JPN.
Megumi HorinouchiDepartment of Nursing, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, JPN.
Aiko MiharaDepartment of Nursing, Kurume University Hospital, Kurume, JPN.
Yuta ImamuraDepartment of Nursing, National Hospital Organization Kumamoto Medical Center, Kumamoto, JPN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pressure ulcers are one of the most predictable adverse events, and nurses play a major role in their prevention. Patients receiving intensive care are at a particularly high risk of developing pressure ulcers. The heel is a common area for pressure ulcers, but the number of comparative studies on preventing pressure ulcers is small. Therefore, it is important to combine the evidence. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent heel pressure ulcers by comprehensively extracting and quantitatively integrating the results of studies on preventive care for heel pressure ulcers in critically ill patients. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were performed. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA) 2020. Eligible criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs examining interventions for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers as an adjunct to standard care in critically ill adult patients in intensive care units. According to the eligibility and exclusion criteria, two review authors independently screened and extracted data from the included literature. The risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Studies were grouped based on intervention type, and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed. A total of 2,800 studies were searched in four databases. In the primary screening, 122 met the eligibility criteria, and in the secondary screening, seven studies (1,412 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Of the seven studies, three (1,037 eligible patients) applied dressings to the heel, two (237 eligible patients) applied oil, and two (138 eligible patients) wore heel protectors. The risk of bias of the included studies was low. Preventive intervention for heel pressure ulcers significantly reduced the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with usual care (odds ratio (OR) = 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.08-0.33, I² = 0%) In the subgroup analysis, dressing was effective in preventing heel pressure ulcers (three studies, OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.05-0.45, I² = 0%). Protector was effective in preventing heel pressure ulcers (two studies, OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.05-0.45, I² = 0%). However, oil application was not significantly effective in preventing pressure ulcers (two studies, OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.06-1.90, I² = 0%). In this subgroup analysis, oil application alone was ineffective in preventing pressure ulcers. This number of studies is insufficient to draw firm conclusions, and further studies are required.

Indexed as

critical careheelsicupressure ulcerspreventive intervention

Identifiers

PMID40432635
PMCPMC12107013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.