MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1468765874 · doi:10.1097/ajp.0000000000000273

Interventions for Individuals With High Levels of Needle Fear

2015· review· en· W1468765874 on OpenAlexafffund
C. Meghan McMurtry, Mélanie Noël, Anna Taddio, Martin M. Antony, Gordon J. G. Asmundson, Rebecca Pillai Riddell, Christine T. Chambers, Vibhuti Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Pain · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of GuelphHospital for Sick ChildrenChildren’s Health Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNovavaxSanofiPfizerMAYDAY Fund
KeywordsMedicineExposure therapyStrictly standardized mean differenceSpecific phobiaPsychological interventionPhobiasRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisAnxietyConfidence intervalPhysical therapyClinical psychologyAnxiety disorderInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of exposure-based psychological and physical interventions for the management of high levels of needle fear and/or phobia and fainting in children and adults. DESIGN/METHODS: A systematic review identified relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of children, adults, or both with high levels of needle fear, including phobia (if not available, then populations with other specific phobias were included). Critically important outcomes were self-reported fear specific to the feared situation and stimulus (psychological interventions) or fainting (applied muscle tension). Data were pooled using standardized mean difference (SMD) or relative risk with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The systematic review included 11 trials. In vivo exposure-based therapy for children 7 years and above showed benefit on specific fear (n=234; SMD: -1.71 [95% CI: -2.72, -0.7]). In vivo exposure-based therapy with adults reduced fear of needles posttreatment (n=20; SMD: -1.09 [-2.04, -0.14]) but not at 1-year follow-up (n=20; SMD: -0.28 [-1.16, 0.6]). Compared with single session, a benefit was observed for multiple sessions of exposure-based therapy posttreatment (n=93; SMD: -0.66 [-1.08, -0.24]) but not after 1 year (n=83; SMD: -0.37 [-0.87, 0.13]). Non in vivo e.g., imaginal exposure-based therapy in children reduced specific fear posttreatment (n=41; SMD: -0.88 [-1.7, -0.05]) and at 3 months (n=24; SMD: -0.89 [-1.73, -0.04]). Non in vivo exposure-based therapy for adults showed benefit on specific fear (n=68; SMD: -0.62 [-1.11, -0.14]) but not procedural fear (n=17; SMD: 0.18 [-0.87, 1.23]). Applied tension showed benefit on fainting posttreatment (n=20; SMD: -1.16 [-2.12, -0.19]) and after 1 year (n=20; SMD: -0.97 [-1.91, -0.03]) compared with exposure alone. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure-based psychological interventions and applied muscle tension show evidence of benefit in the reduction of fear in pediatric and adult populations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.299
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations90
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of PainSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207