MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085659254 · doi:10.1136/ebn.6.2.45

Review: psychological interventions reduce the severity and frequency of chronic pain in children and adolescents

2003· letter· en· W2085659254 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Stinson

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeb of scienceMedicineMeta-analysisInternal medicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialDistressPsychological distressPediatricsPhysical therapyPsychiatryClinical psychologyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eccleston C, Morley S, Williams A, et al. Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of psychological therapy for chronic pain in children and adolescents, with a subset meta-analysis of pain relief. Pain2002 ; 99 : 157 –65 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In children and adolescents with chronic pain and associated distress and disability, are psychological interventions effective for reducing the frequency and severity of pain? Studies were identified by searching the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline (1966–99), PsycLIT (1987–99), EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (1980–99), and the Social Sciences Indices (1981–99). Bibliographies of relevant articles were reviewed, and experts in the field were contacted for additional studies. Studies were selected if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a clearly defined psychological treatment (even when this treatment was concomitant with other non-psychological treatments given as standard care) with a control condition (wait list and self monitoring) … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPain%26rft.stitle%253DPain%26rft.aulast%253DEccleston%26rft.auinit1%253DC.%26rft.volume%253D99%26rft.issue%253D1-2%26rft.spage%253D157%26rft.epage%253D165%26rft.atitle%253DSystematic%2Breview%2Bof%2Brandomised%2Bcontrolled%2Btrials%2Bof%2Bpsychological%2Btherapy%2Bfor%2Bchronic%2Bpain%2Bin%2Bchildren%2Band%2Badolescents%252C%2Bwith%2Ba%2Bsubset%2Bmeta-analysis%2Bof%2Bpain%2Brelief.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0304-3959%252802%252900072-6%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12237193%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00072-6&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12237193&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F2%2F45.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000178439800016&link_type=ISI

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207