Stage I: non‐blanchable redness of intact skin

Intact skin with non‐blanchable erythema of a localised area usually over a bony prominence. Discoloration of the skin, warmth, oedema, hardness or pain may also be present. Darkly pigmented skin may not have visible blanching.

Stage II: partial thickness skin loss or blister

Partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red pink wound bed, without slough. May also present as an intact or open/ruptured serum‐filled or sero‐sanguinous filled blister.

Stage III: full thickness skin loss (fat visible)

Full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible but bone, tendon or muscle are not exposed. Some slough may be present. May include undermining and tunnelling.

Stage IV: full thickness tissue loss (muscle/bone visible)

Full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle. Slough or eschar may be present. Often include undermining and tunnelling (EPUAP/NPUAP 2009).

1. Was the allocation sequence randomly generated?

Low risk of bias:

The investigators describe a random component in the sequence generation process such as: referring to a random number table; using a computer random‐number generator; coin tossing; shuffling cards or envelopes; throwing dice; drawing of lots.

High risk of bias:

The investigators describe a non‐random component in the sequence generation process. Usually, the description would involve some systematic, non‐random approach, for example: sequence generated by odd or even date of birth; sequence generated by some rule based on date (or day) of admission; sequence generated by some rule based on hospital or clinic record number.

Unclear:

Insufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement of low or high risk of bias.

2. Was the treatment allocation adequately concealed?

Low risk of bias:

Participants and investigators enrolling participants could not foresee assignment because one of the following, or an equivalent method, was used to conceal allocation: central allocation (including telephone, web‐based and pharmacy‐controlled randomisation); sequentially numbered drug containers of identical appearance; sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes.

High risk of bias:

Participants or investigators enrolling participants could possibly foresee assignments and thus introduce selection bias, such as allocation based on: use of an open random allocation schedule (e.g. a list of random numbers); assignment envelopes without appropriate safeguards (e.g. envelopes were unsealed, non‐opaque or not sequentially numbered); alternation or rotation; date of birth; case record number; any other explicitly unconcealed procedure.

Unclear:

Insufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk of bias. This is usually the case if the method of concealment is not described or not described in sufficient detail to allow a definite judgement, for example if the use of assignment envelopes is described, but it remains unclear whether envelopes were sequentially numbered, opaque and sealed.

3. Blinding ‐ was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented during the study (participants and outcome assessors)?

Low risk of bias:

Any one of the following:

• No blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome and the outcome measurement are not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

• Blinding of participants and key study personnel ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken.

• Either participants or some key study personnel were not blinded, but outcome assessment was blinded and the non‐blinding of others unlikely to introduce bias.

High risk of bias:

Any one of the following:

• No blinding or incomplete blinding, and the outcome or outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

• Blinding of key study participants and personnel attempted, but likely that the blinding could have been broken.

• Either participants or some key study personnel were not blinded, and the non‐blinding of others likely to introduce bias.

Unclear:

Either of the following:

• Insufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk of bias.

• The study did not address this outcome.

4. Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed?

Low risk of bias:

Any one of the following:

• No missing outcome data.

• Reasons for missing outcome data unlikely to be related to true outcome (for survival data, censoring unlikely to be introducing bias).

• Missing outcome data balanced in numbers across intervention groups, with similar reasons for missing data across groups.

• For dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on the intervention effect estimate.

• For continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or standardised difference in means) among missing outcomes not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on observed effect size.

• Missing data have been imputed using appropriate methods.

High risk of bias:

Any one of the following:

• Reason for missing outcome data likely to be related to true outcome, with either imbalance in numbers or reasons for missing data across intervention groups.

• For dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk enough to induce clinically relevant bias in intervention effect estimate.

• For continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or standardised difference in means) among missing outcomes enough to induce clinically relevant bias in observed effect size.

• ‘As‐treated’ analysis done with substantial departure of the intervention received from that assigned at randomisation.

• Potentially inappropriate application of simple imputation.

Unclear:

Either of the following:

• Insufficient reporting of attrition/exclusions to permit judgement of low or high risk of bias (e.g. number randomised not stated, no reasons for missing data provided).

• The study did not address this outcome.

5. Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?

Low risk of bias:

Either of the following:

• The study protocol is available and all of the study’s pre‐specified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review have been reported in the pre‐specified way.

• The study protocol is not available but it is clear that the published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were pre‐specified (convincing text of this nature may be uncommon).

High risk of bias:

Any one of the following:

• Not all of the study’s pre‐specified primary outcomes have been reported.

• One or more primary outcomes are reported using measurements, analysis methods or subsets of the data (e.g. sub scales) that were not pre‐specified.

• One or more reported primary outcomes were not pre‐specified (unless clear justification for their reporting is provided, such as an unexpected adverse effect).

• One or more outcomes of interest in the review are reported incompletely so that they cannot be entered in a meta‐analysis.

• The study report fails to include results for a key outcome that would be expected to have been reported for such a study.

Unclear:

Insufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk of bias. It is likely that the majority of studies will fall into this category.

6. Other sources of potential bias

Low risk of bias:

The study appears to be free of other sources of bias.

High risk of bias:

There is at least one important risk of bias. For example, the study:

• had a potential source of bias related to the specific study design used; or

• has been claimed to have been fraudulent; or

• had some other problem.

Unclear:

There may be a risk of bias, but there is either:

• insufficient information to assess whether an important risk of bias exists; or

• insufficient rationale or evidence that an identified problem will introduce bias.