Brief Clinical Report: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis of Pain Memory‐reframing Interventions for Children's Needle Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.025 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".