MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000784488 · doi:10.1542/peds.2019-1139

Digital Technology Distraction for Acute Pain in Children: A Meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3000784488 on OpenAlexafffund
Michelle Gates, Lisa Hartling, Jocelyn Shulhan-Kilroy, Tara MacGregor, Samantha Guitard, Aireen Wingert, Robin Featherstone, Ben Vandermeer, Naveen Poonai, Janeva Kircher, Shirley Perry, Timothy A.D. Graham, Shannon D. Scott, Samina Ali

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineDistractionMeta-analysisAcute painMedical emergencyAnesthesiaInternal medicineCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Digital distraction is being integrated into pediatric pain care, but its efficacy is currently unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of digital technology distraction on pain and distress in children experiencing acutely painful conditions or procedures. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, Ei Compendex, Web of Science, and gray literature sources. STUDY SELECTION: Quantitative studies of digital technology distraction for acutely painful conditions or procedures in children. DATA EXTRACTION: Performed by 1 reviewer with verification. Outcomes were child pain and distress. RESULTS: There were 106 studies (n = 7820) that reported on digital technology distractors (eg, virtual reality and video games) used during common procedures (eg, venipuncture, dental, and burn treatments). No studies reported on painful conditions. For painful procedures, digital distraction resulted in a modest but clinically important reduction in self-reported pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.66 to −0.29; 46 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; n = 3200), observer-reported pain (SMD −0.68; 95% CI −0.91 to −0.45; 17 RCTs; n = 1199), behavioral pain (SMD −0.57; 95% CI −0.94 to −0.19; 19 RCTs; n = 1173), self-reported distress (SMD −0.49; 95% CI −0.70 to −0.27; 19 RCTs; n = 1818), observer-reported distress (SMD −0.47; 95% CI −0.77 to −0.17; 10 RCTs; n = 826), and behavioral distress (SMD −0.35; 95% CI −0.59 to −0.12; 17 RCTs; n = 1264) compared with usual care. LIMITATIONS: Few studies directly compared different distractors or provided subgroup data to inform applicability. CONCLUSIONS: Digital distraction provides modest pain and distress reduction for children undergoing painful procedures; its superiority over nondigital distractors is not established. Context, preferences, and availability should inform the choice of distractor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.040
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations119
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207