N/A N=258 Wheeled Mobility for Preventing Pressure Ulcers
Mobility Limitation
Primary: Incidence of a Sitting-induced Pressure Ulcer — 19; 15; 75; 69 Participants — p=0.77
Clinical Trial Search
Completed trials with posted results — search by concept, filter by the parameters that matter at the bedside.
N/A N=15 Effects of Different Support Surfaces on the Properties Skin After Loading
Pressure Ulcers
Primary: Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL) in g/m2/h on Sacrum, at Baseline — 7.8; 7.7; 7.1 g/m2/h
N/A N=144 Self-Management to Prevent Ulcers in Veterans With SCI (Spinal Cord Injury)
Pressure Ulcers · Spinal Cord Injuries
Primary: Percent of Possible Self-Reported Skin Care Behaviors — 73.8; 74.1; 83.5; 79.5 % of Possible Self-Reported Behaviors
Phase 3 N=330 Pressure Ulcer Prevention in Ventilated Patients Using Two Repositioning Regimens
Pressure Ulcers
Primary: Incidence of Pressure Ulcer (PU) Grade ≥ II — 22; 17 participants
N/A N=359 Polyurethane Foam on the Sacrum for Prevention
Hip Fracture · Pressure Ulcer
Primary: Number of Participants With Pressure Sores — 8; 28 Participants
N/A N=50 Pressure Injury Prevention in the ICU With Multi-Layer Foam Dressings
Pressure Incidence Prevention
Primary: User Friendliness of Both Sacrum and Heel (Left & Right) Dressings: Comfort, Conformability, Acceptability, the Handling at Application and Ease of Inspection of the…
N/A N=1,312 Optimal Patient Turning for Reducing Hospital Acquired Pressure Ulcers
Pressure Ulcer
Primary: Count of Participants With Pressure Ulcer According to the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) Criteria for Pressure Ulcers — 5; 15 Participants — p=.012
N/A N=1,633 Silicone Adhesive Multilayer Foam Dressings to Prevent Pressure Ulcer
Pressure Ulcer
Primary: Number of Participants Who Developed a New Pressure Ulcer Category 2 or Worse on Sacrum, Heels or Greater Trochanter — 43; 34 Participants — p=0.04
N/A N=451 An RCT on Support Surfaces for Pressure Ulcer Prevention
Pressure Injury · Pressure Ulcer
Primary: Pressure Injury — 23; 10 Participants — p=0.8
N/A N=232 An RCT on Preventing Pressure Ulcers With Wheelchair Seat Cushions
Pressure Ulcer
Primary: Sitting-induced Pressure Ulcers — 8; 1 participants — p=0.04
N/A N=475 Effectiveness of Two Silicone Dressings for Sacral and Heel Pressure Ulcer Prevention
Pressure Ulcer
Primary: Number of Pressure Ulcers Category II, III, IV, Unstageable, Deep Tissue Injury (DTI) at Heels and/or Sacrum (Proportion) — 6; 22 Pressure ulcer
N/A N=10 P400 for Stage II-IV Pressure Ulcers in Home and Extended Care
Pressure Ulcers
Primary: Change From Baseline in Ulcer Surface Area at Week 12 — -7.96 cm^2
N/A N=428 Utility of Interface Pressure Mapping
Ulcers · Bedsores
Primary: Pressure Mapping Reducing Hospital Acquired Pressure Ulcers — 2; 10 Participants
N/A N=67 Biatain Silicone Sacral for Pressure Injury Prevention in Hospital-admitted Patients at Risk
Pressure Injury Prevention
Primary: Number of Adverse Events — 0 Adverse events
N/A N=46 Development of Technologies to Increase In-Seat Movement to Prevent Sitting-Acquired Pressure Injuries in Wheelchair Users
Pressure Ulcer · Pressure Injury · Wheelchair
Primary: Normalized Weight Shift Frequency (Weight Shifts/Hour) — 2.41; 2.38 normalized weight shifts per hour
N/A N=3,343 Silk-Like Bed Linens for Prevention of Unit-Acquired Ulcers
Pressure Ulcer
Primary: Rate of Development of Unit-acquired Pressure Ulcers — 45; 42 Participants
N/A N=80 Treatment of Pressure Ulcers Using Biological Skin Substitutes
Pressure Sore
Primary: Percent Change in Wound Area — -78.5; -65.1 percentage change
Phase 4 N=21 Wound Management for Sacral Pressure Ulcers With Necrotic Tissue
Pressure Ulcers
Primary: Percentage of Wounds Healed — 63.1; 6.1 percentage of wounds
N/A N=12 Comparing the Effects of Three Different Dressings on the Cutaneous Response of Sacral Skin
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
Primary: Change in Skin Surface Temperature From Baseline — 3.1; 3.8; 3.0; 3.3 °C
N/A N=18 Developing a Home Telehealth Program to Manage Pressure Ulcers in SCI/D
Spinal Cord Injury
Primary: Days of Data — 9; 7 days
Phase 4 N=29 A Multi-centre Evaluation of the Performance of Window Dressings on Subjects With High Risk Pressure Ulceration
Pressure Ulcer
Primary: Erythema ( No/Yes) — 5; 24; 16; 13 participants
N/A N=360 Peripheral Catheter Pressure Ulcer Prevention in Pediatry : Use of Compresses Versus Standard Care
Pressure Ulcer
Primary: Pressure Ulcer of Grade >=1 on the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) Scale — 48; 94 Participants
Phase 4 N=107 Decreasing Intraoperative Skin Damage in Prone Position Surgeries
Pressure Injury
Primary: Number of Participants With Intraoperative Acquired Pressure Injuries (IAPI) — 13; 14 Participants
N/A N=18 Comparison of Sacral Interface Pressure in Healthy Volunteers on Two Dynamic Pressure-Prevention Support Surfaces
Healthy Volunteer · Pressure Distribution
Primary: Peak Sacral Pressure — 17.8; 21.0; 17.1; 21.6 mm hg — p=<0.05
N/A N=21 Evaluation of Heel Offloading Devices for Reducing Heel Contact Pressures in Healthy Volunteers
Heel Pressure Ulceration Prevention Strategies
Primary: Average Contact Force Exerted on the Heel — 60.25; 39.74; 5.57; 29.34 mmHg — p=<0.00005
N/A N=15 Alternating Pressure Overlay on Weight Bearing Tissue Tolerance in People With Spinal Cord Injury
Spinal Cord Injuries · Pressure Ulcer
Primary: Sacral Skin Blood Flow During Supine Lying — 12.65; 15.54; 11.96 arbitrary unit
N/A N=52 Pilot Study of Incidence and Change in Existing Pressure Ulcers: TC500 Bed Compared With Standard Beds
Pressure Ulcers
Primary: Indicence of Pressure Ulcers — 0; 4 participants
Phase 2 N=28 Enhancement of Pressure Healing With Pulsatile Lavage
Spinal Cord Injury
Primary: Pressure Ulcer Geometry — 3.5; 4.9; 2.9; 3.0 cm
N/A N=200 Nutritional Support in Pressure Ulcer Patients
Pressure Ulcers
Primary: Rate of Healing — 62.9; 43.4 percent change
Phase 2 N=140 Cooling Leg and Foot Ulcer Skin Post Healing to Prevent Ulcer Recurrence
Venous Hypertension Ulcers · Venous Stasis Ulcer · Venous Ulcer
Primary: Number of Participants With Ulcer Recurrence — 6; 3; 11; 5 participants — p=0.091