Pediatric Clinical Practice Guidelines for Acute Procedural Pain: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Procedural pain assessment and management have been extensively studied through multiple research studies over the past decade. Results of this research have been included in numerous pediatric pain practice guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the quality of existing practice guidelines for acute procedural pain in children and provide recommendations for their use. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus from 2000 to July 2013. A gray literature search was also conducted through the Translating Research Into Practice database, Guidelines International Network database, and National Guideline Clearinghouse. Four reviewers rated relevant guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument. Screening of guidelines, assessment of methodological quality, and data abstraction were conducted by 2 pairs of raters. Disagreements in overall assessments were resolved through consensus. RESULTS: Eighteen guidelines from 4930 retrieved abstracts were included in this study. Based on the AGREE II domains, the guidelines generally scored high in the scope and purpose and clarity of presentation areas. Information on the rigor of guideline development, applicability, and editorial independence were specified infrequently. Four of the 18 guidelines provided tools to help clinicians apply the recommendations in practice settings; 5 were recommended for use in clinical settings, and the remaining 13 were recommended for use with modification. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increasing availability of clinical practice guidelines for procedural pain in children, the majority are of average quality. More transparency and comprehensive reporting are needed for the guideline development process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.252 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".