Trial reportHospital pediatrics2013
A randomized trial of facilitated family-centered rounds.
Trial report in Hospital pediatrics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic clowns in pediatrics: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European journal of pediatrics · 2016Pooled it
- Therapeutic clowns in pediatrics: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials-corrigendum.European journal of pediatrics · 2017Article
- Response to "literature pollution: a personal experience".European journal of pediatrics · 2017Article
- Literature pollution: a personal experience.European journal of pediatrics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFamily-centered rounds (FCR) are becoming the status quo for inpatient pediatric medical care; however, barriers still exist. The use of facilitators in FCR is gaining popularity. Although facilitators can increase comfort with FCR, the choice of preferred facilitator has not been studied by using rigorous methodology. In this study, we performed a randomized trial of facilitated FCR with bunnies and clowns, 2 commonly mentioned facilitators, and compared their results with the usual care condition.
methodsThe 3 floor teams were randomized to have rounds facilitated with bunnies and clowns or the usual care model facilitated by distracted residents and overbearing attending physicians. Infection control procedures were instituted. Outcome measures were parent satisfaction scores, use of anxiolytic agents during examinations as part of FCR, resident satisfaction, and the number of times presenters were interrupted by their attending. Differences between the experimental and control groups were analyzed by using ttests, chi2 statistics, and multiple regression analysis. Qualitative analyses were also performed by using participant-observers.
resultsBunnies had the best overall improvement in parent satisfaction, anxiety, and resident satisfaction. Both intervention groups were successful at reducing attending interruptions. The clown arm was suspended by the Data Safety Monitoring Board before study completion due to adverse events. DISCUSSION: Facilitated FCR has the potential to improve satisfaction among parents, patients, and residents, and to decrease attending interruptions. Care needs to be taken, however, to avoid unanticipated adverse effects from potentially emotionally damaging interventions. Tularemia was not identified in any of our treatment conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.