MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598947960 · doi:10.1111/papr.12572

Brief Clinical Report: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis of Pain Memory‐reframing Interventions for Children's Needle Procedures

2017· review· en· W2598947960 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Practice · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of GuelphAlberta Children's HospitalChildren’s Health Research InstituteWestern UniversityMcMaster Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingPsychological interventionMedicineDistressRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Meta-analysisGrading (engineering)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapistPsychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Children's pain memories play a powerful role in shaping future pain experiences. Interventions aiming to reframe children's memories of painful medical procedures hold promise for altering pain memories and improving subsequent pain experience; however, this evidence has not been synthesized. This brief clinical report includes a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing memory-reframing interventions for needle procedures in children and adolescents to stimulate future research. METHODS: Database searches identified relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted and pooled using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and Cochrane methodologies. Critically important outcomes included fear during a subsequent needle procedure; important outcomes included memory of fear and pain following the needle procedure and pain and distress during a subsequent needle procedure. RESULTS: Three studies including 158 children 3 to 18 years of age were identified. The quality of evidence was low to very low. There was no benefit for the critically important outcome of anticipatory fear; however, the test for overall effect trended toward significance (P = 0.07). Memory-reframing interventions were efficacious in altering children's memories of needle procedures to be less distressing. No benefit was found for acute fear or anticipatory, acute, or overall distress. CONCLUSIONS: There are limited data suggesting that interventions that reframe children's memories of needle procedures hold promise for altering pain memories and potentially reducing anticipatory fear. High-quality intervention development work is needed to determine how these interventions can be adapted to the developing child in order to lead to lasting reductions in pain, fear, and distress at future needle 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.

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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.303
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.303
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.317 · 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