Efficacy of the Buzzy Device for Pain Management During Needle-related Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of the Buzzy device combining cold and vibration for needle-related procedural pain in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Databases search was conducted from inception to December 2017 to identify randomized controlled trials using the Buzzy device for pain management in children undergoing needle-related procedures. Selection of studies, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence were independently performed by 2 reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 9 studies involving 1138 participants aged between 3 and 18 years old were included in the systematic review and 7 were suitable for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis compared the Buzzy device with a no-treatment comparator and the effect of the device was significant in reducing self-report procedural pain (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.52 to -0.70; P<0.0001), parent-reported procedural pain (SMD: -0.94; 95% CI: -1.62 to -0.27; P=0.006), observer-report procedural pain (SMD: -1.19; 95% CI: -1.90 to -0.47; P=0.001), observer-reported procedural anxiety (SMD -1.37; 95% CI: -1.77 to -0.96; P<0.00001), and parent-reported procedural anxiety (SMD -1.36; 95% CI: -2.11 to -0.61; P=0.0004). There was no significant difference for the success of the procedure at first attempt and the occurrence of adverse events. DISCUSSION: The Buzzy device seems to be a promising intervention for procedural pain management in children. However, the comparative effect is uncertain due to the presence of significant heterogeneity and very low-quality evidence. There is a need to improve the methodological quality and rigor in the design of future trials to conclude to the efficacy of the Buzzy device.
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 | 0.023 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".