A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Examining Psychological Interventions for Needle-related Procedural Pain and Distress in Children and Adolescents: An Abbreviated Cochrane Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the results of a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions for children and adolescents undergoing needle-related procedures. METHODS: A variety of cognitive-behavioral psychological interventions for managing procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents between 2 and 19 years of age were examined. Outcome measures included pain and distress as assessed by self-report, observer report, behavioral/observational measures, and physiological correlates. RESULTS: Twenty-eight trials met the criteria for inclusion in the review and provided the data necessary for pooling the results. Together, the trials included 1,039 participants in treatment conditions and 951 in control conditions. The largest effect sizes for treatment improvement over control conditions were found for distraction, combined cognitive-behavioral interventions, and hypnosis, with promising but limited evidence for several other psychological interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for conducting future RCTs are provided, and particular attention to the quality of trial design and reporting is highlighted.
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 | 0.014 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".