中文摘要：

目的：系统评价减压床不同翻身间隔时间对临床住院病人预防压疮的有效性。方法计算机检索Co‐chrane、JBI、Medline、PubMed、Embase、EBSCO CINAHL、CBM、重庆维普和万方数据库，查找关于使用减压床翻身间隔时间对预防压疮的相关研究文献，检索时限均从建库至2015年1月14日。由3位评价员按纳入与排除标准独立筛选文献、提取资料并评价文献质量后，采用RevM an 5．1软件进行M eta分析。结果共纳入6项研究，882例患者。Meta分析结果显示：与传统2 h翻身方法相比，采用4 h翻身方法对预防压疮发生的差异无统计学意义，RR＝1．95，95％，CI（0．63，6．02），P＝0．25。与6 h翻身相比，4 h翻身在预防Ⅱ期及Ⅱ期以上压疮的发生情况方面RR＝0．16，95％，CI（0．06，0．41），P＝0．001，差异有统计学意义。结论现有证据表明，对于预防Ⅱ期及Ⅱ期以上压疮的发生情况，4h翻身法优于6h翻身法。在所有压疮发生情况方面，2h翻身与4h翻身对预防压疮的效果无显著差异。从成本效益角度着眼，4h翻身法可减轻护士工作量及提高工作效率等。

英文摘要：

Objective To evaluate the effects of pressure ulcer prevention by decompression bed time interval . Method Cochrane ,JBI ,Medline ,PubMed ,Embase ,EBSCO CINAHL ,CBM ,Chongqing Weipu and Wanfang da‐tabases were searched to identity relevant literature about？pressure ulcer prevention decompression bed interval？time from the database setup to Jan 14 ,2014 .Literature was appraised according JBI scale by three assessors inde‐pendently .All Data were pooled and Meta analyzed using RevMan 5 .1 .Result Six eligible trials were identified with a total of 882 study participants .Meta analysis revealed that compared to re‐position every 2 hours ,4 hoursturning strategy shows no significant disadvantage in overall incidence of pressure ulcer[RR=1 .95 ,95% CI（0 .63 ,6 .02） ,P=0 .25] ,while brings more benefits in prevention stage 2 or more severe pressure ulcer significantly when compared with 6 hour’ turning strategy[RR=0 .16 ,95% CI（0 .06 ,0 .41） ,P=0 .001] .Conclusion This evidence reveals that 4 hour’ turning strategy shows no significant disadvantage in overall incidence of pressure ulcer ,and from the per‐spective of cost‐and‐effectiveness ,4 hours’ turning tactic overw helm 2 hour’ and the 6 hour’ turning strategy .