Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Silicone Multilayer Foam Dressing for Pressure Injury Prevention: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the clinical and economic impact of using a silicone multilayer foam dressing in the prevention of sacral pressure injuries (PIs) in at-risk patients. METHOD: Systematic literature...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing Vol. 53; no. 3; pp. 205 - 213
Autores principales: Pittman, Joyce, Constable, Stephanie, Costa, Ben, Askew, Neil, Atkinson, Lloyd
Formato: meta analysis research systematic review tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins May/Jun2026
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
Descripción
Sumario:Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the clinical and economic impact of using a silicone multilayer foam dressing in the prevention of sacral pressure injuries (PIs) in at-risk patients. METHOD: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Literature was obtained through EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library between January 2010 and October 2023. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials that compared a silicone multilayer foam dressing with standard prevention (SP) care in the intervention arm, or SP alone as a comparator in the control arm. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) instrument. FINDINGS: A total of 781 records were identified, and data were extracted from 3 studies. The pooled sample comprised 589 participants receiving SP versus 561 patients receiving SP plus multilayer dressing across various hospital settings. Meta-analysis revealed a 66% reduction in the odds of PI among patients receiving SP plus the dressing when compared with SP alone (odds ratio, 0.34, 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.54). Subanalysis of stage 1 and stage ≥2 PIs confirmed the stability of these findings and resulted in an estimated cost saving of $1,925 per patient; this finding was stable under both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. IMPLICATIONS: Findings from this meta-analysis supports the clinical and economic benefits of implementing multilayer foam dressings into existing care bundles in the prevention of PIs in at-risk patients.