Do Children Undergoing Cancer Procedures under Pharmacological Sedation Still Report Pain and Anxiety? A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to quantify children's levels of pain and fear during needle puncture procedures in a context where intravenous sedation-analgesia seems to be effective for pain and anxiety relief. The relevance of a nonpharmacological intervention in the pharmacological regimen was evaluated. DESIGN: Fear and pain were assessed by children, parents and physicians, on a visual analog scale (VAS, 0-10 cm), before and during puncture procedures. Higher scores represented more intense pain/fear. RESULTS: During 4 consecutive months, 18 children were recruited, but four were excluded from analyses because they did not receive the full sedation regimen (midazolam/ketamine) (N = 14, mean age +/- SD: 9.9 +/- 3.4 years). Parents self-reported their own anxiety before the procedure (4.69 +/- 3.17), but no correlation was found with their children's self-reported fear. Before procedures, the children's fear was self-reported on a VAS by children (2.93 +/- 2.93), parents (4.45 +/- 2.87), and physicians (3.67 +/- 2.48). During procedures under sedation, the children's pain (1.71 +/- 2.74) did not correlate with the parents' (4.01 +/- 3.23) and physicians' (1.83 +/- 2.32) ratings. Children anticipating high levels of pain and fear on the VAS experienced higher levels of pain (r = 0.65, P < 0.05) and fear (r = 0.59, P < 0.05) during the procedures. Sixteen parents (16/18) agreed to participate with their children if a study evaluating hypnosis for pain and anxiety was conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Sedation is effective in lowering levels of fear and pain in children during procedures, but they still anticipate fear before the procedures. Parents are anxious for their children. Future hypnotic intervention could be helpful for children as well as parents to cope with anxiety during procedures.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".