Nonpharmacological Interventions for Acute Wound Care Distress in Pediatric Patients With Burn Injury: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute wound care distress among burn-injured pediatric patients is of major clinical concern. This systematic review evaluates the benefits of nonpharmacological interventions to reduce this distress. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched using appropriate search terms for articles reporting overall psychological effects of pediatric burn injury. Key references were hand-searched. Searches yielded approximately 900 unique citations. Two authors reviewed each abstract, and 198 articles were retrieved, of which 34 were selected for full review. Of these 34 articles, 12 focused on acute wound care distress and nonpharmacological interventions. Critical appraisal of individual studies was conducted using the methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force, with a particular focus on assessing nonrandomized controlled trial designs. Twelve articles were reviewed and categorized according to intervention types child mediated (CM), parent mediated (PM), and health care provider mediated (HCPM). Using the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria, 7 of the 12 articles were rated "fair" or "good" and five were rated as having "poor" internal validity. The HCPM and CM intervention categories reported patient benefit. The two PM studies were both rated "poor." Studies of nonpharmacological interventions to reduce pediatric burn distress were few, with a significant proportion (5/12) having concerns about internal validity. Patient benefit was reported for HCPM and CM interventions. Research designs incorporating control groups in studies that are adequately powered are needed. Additional research is required in the area of PM interventions in particular.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".