Search

To investigate the preventive effect of different dressings on pressure injuries related to non‐invasive ventilation equipment and to screen the efficacy of dressings. Systematic review and network meta‐analysis. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (CNKI), Wanfang Database, Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) and Weipu Database (VIP) were used for the search from the date of inception of each database to 15 October 2023. The quality of the data was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Stata 16.0 Software was used to analysis and ranking of different types of dressings. A total of 23 randomized controlled trials on 7 interventions were included in the final analysis. The effectiveness of these in preventing the overall incidence of pressure injuries is ranked from best to worst as follows: hydrogel dressing > foam dressing > petroleum jelly gauze dressing > hydrocolloid dressing > film dressing > clean gauze dressing > sterile gauze. Sixteen studies reported the incidence of Stage I pressure injuries, the effectiveness in preventing the incidence of Stage I pressure injuries was ranked from best to least effective: foam dressing > hydrogel dressing > petroleum jelly gauze dressing > hydrocolloid dressing > film dressing > clean gauze dressing > sterile gauze dressing. Fourteen studies reported the incidence of Stages I/II pressure injuries, the effective in preventing the incidence of Stages I and II pressure injuries was ranked from best to least effective: foam dressing > hydrogel dressing > petroleum jelly gauze dressing > hydrocolloid dressing > clean gauze dressing > sterile gauze dressing. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of different dressings, both hydrogel and foam dressings are effective in preventing pressure injuries related to non‐invasive ventilation equipment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]