Abstract
Randomised controlled trials are typically cited as the ‘best’ form of study design to be used when comparing the efficacy or effectiveness of different devices such as pressure-redistributing beds and mattresses. This article presents a RCT that compared two forms of alternating pressure air mattress. No statistically significant differences were found between the incidence of sores upon the two mattresses. However the study was under-powered, and so was unlikely to identify differences in efficacy should they have existed. In discussion it is suggested that randomised controlled trials maybe less useful to those purchasing mattresses than `weaker' study designs that capture the experience of the users of such devices.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
