ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Comparative analysis of sitting pressures in individuals with spinal cord injury: static vs. dynamic air cushions.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pressure injuries (PIs) significantly affect the health and social participation of individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Anti-decubitus cushions help prevent these injuries by distributing weight and reducing peak pressures. Evidence supports air cushions as the most effective solution for pressure relief during sitting. In recent years, in order to enhance their effectiveness, these cushions have incorporated dynamic and intelligent systems. Objective: To analyse and compare sitting pressure values while using a commercially available dynamic intelligent air cushion-specifically the Nubolo®|Med-versus other high-end air cushions. Methods: The sample comprised 41 individuals with chronic, complete traumatic SCI, presenting various risk factors for pressure injuries. Measurements were conducted using the Nubolo®|Med cushion, participants' usual high-end air cushions, and a CONFORMatSYSTEM mat for pressure recording. Outcome variables were peak pressure (PP), normalized peak pressure (PP/CA), average pressure (AP), and contact area (CA), measured on the Nubolo®|Med and on participants' usual cushion. A comparative analysis was subsequently carried out between the two conditions. Results: No significant differences were found between the two conditions in the AP and CA variables. However, statistically significant differences were observed in the PP [static cushion: 38.04(12.46) mmHg vs. Nubolo®|Med: 31.81(9.57) mmHg; Conclusion: The findings indicate that the Nubolo®|Med cushion showed lower peak sitting pressures compared to high-end static air cushions in individuals with complete SCI.
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.