MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Non-pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children

2009· reference-entry· en· W4230719318 on OpenAlexaff
Peggy Yip, Philippa Middleton, Allan M Cyna, Alison V Carlyle

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2009
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyMedicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryMEDLINEPsycINFODistressGeneral anaesthesiaCINAHLSedationMeta-analysisAdverse effectClinical trialAnesthesiaClinical psychologyPsychiatrySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Induction of general anaesthesia can be distressing for children. Non-pharmacological methods for reducing anxiety and improving co-operation may avoid the adverse effects of preoperative sedation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions in assisting induction of anaesthesia in children by reducing their anxiety, distress or increasing their co-operation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1). We searched the following databases from inception to 14th December 2008: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS, Web of Science and EMBASE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of a non-pharmacological intervention implemented on the day of surgery or anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 trials, all from developed countries, involving 1796 children, their parents or both. Eight trials assessed parental presence. None showed significant differences in anxiety or co-operation of children during induction, except for one where parental presence was significantly less effective than midazolam in reducing children's anxiety at induction. Six trials assessed interventions for children. Preparation with a computer package improved co-operation compared with parental presence (one trial). Children playing hand-held video games before induction were significantly less anxious than controls or premedicated children (one trial). Compared with controls, clown doctors reduced anxiety in children (modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (mYPAS): mean difference (MD) 30.75 95% CI 15.14 to 46.36; one trial). In children undergoing hypnosis, there was a nonsignificant trend towards reduced anxiety during induction (mYPAS < 24: risk ratio (RR) 0.59 95% CI 0.33 to 1.04 - 39% versus 68%: one trial) compared with midazolam. A low sensory environment improved children's co-operation at induction (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.95; one trial) and no effect on children's anxiety was found for music therapy (one trial).Parental interventions were assessed in three trials. Children of parents having acupuncture compared with parental sham-acupuncture were less anxious during induction (mYPAS MD 17, 95% CI 3.49 to 30.51) and more children were co-operative (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.99). Parental anxiety was also significantly reduced in this trial. In two trials, a video viewed preoperatively did not show effects on child or parental outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that the presence of parents during induction of general anaesthesia does not reduce their child's anxiety. Promising non-pharmacological interventions such as parental acupuncture; clown doctors; hypnotherapy; low sensory stimulation; and hand-held video games needs to be investigated further.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations95
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207