Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26201015›Full record

SynthesisThe Clinical journal of pain2015

Process Interventions for Vaccine Injections: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trials.

Rebecca Pillai Riddell, Anna Taddio, C Meghan McMurtry, Vibhuti Shah, Melanie Noel, Christine T Chambers, HELPinKIDS&Adults Team

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Clinical journal of pain, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Reducing pain during vaccine injections: clinical practice guideline.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2015
    Guideline
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Rebecca Pillai Riddell*Department of Psychology, York University †Department of Psychiatry, the Hospital for Sick Children ‡Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto §§Departement of Neonatology ∥Child Health and Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children §Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto ‡‡Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto ††Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto ¶Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph #Children's Health Research Institute, Children's Hospital **Department of Paediatrics, Western University, London, ON ¶¶Department of Pediatrics and Psychology, Faculty of Science, Dalhousie University ##IWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada ∥∥Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA.
Anna Taddio
C Meghan McMurtry
Vibhuti Shah
Melanie Noel
Christine T Chambers
HELPinKIDS&Adults Team
3M (United States) · USApple (Israel) · ILHospital for Sick Children · CAWestern University · CAYork University · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research KRS 132031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of process interventions (education for clinicians, parent presence, education of parents [before and on day of vaccination], and education of patients on day of vaccination) on reducing vaccination pain, fear, and distress and increasing the use of interventions during vaccination. DESIGN/

methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Critical outcomes were pain, fear, distress (when applicable), and use of pain management interventions. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, combinations of these) and pooled using established methods. Analyses were conducted using standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR).

resultsThirteen studies were included. Results were generally mixed. On the basis of low to very low-quality evidence, the following specific critical outcomes showed significant effects suggesting: (1) clinicians should be educated about vaccine injection pain management (use of interventions: SMD 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47, 0.85); (2) parents should be present (distress preprocedure: SMD -0.85; 95% CI: -1.35, -0.35); (3) parents should be educated before the vaccination day (use of intervention preprocedure: SMD 0.83; 95% CI: 0.25, 1.41 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.86; distress acute: SMD, -0.35; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.13); (4) parents should be educated on the vaccination day (use of interventions: SMD 1.02; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.83 and RR, 2.42; 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99; distress preprocedure+acute+recovery: SMD -0.48; 95% CI: -0.82, -0.15); and (5) individuals 3 years of age and above should be educated on the day of vaccination (fear preprocedure: SMD -0.67; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.07).

conclusionsEducating individuals involved in the vaccination procedure (clinicians, parents of children being vaccinated; individuals above 3 y of age) is beneficial to increase use of pain management strategies, reduce distress surrounding with vaccination, and to reduce fear. When possible, parent presence is also recommended for children undergoing vaccination.

Indexed as

Psychotherapeutic ProcessesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDatabases, BibliographicHumansInjectionsPainPsychotherapyVaccination

Identifiers

PMID26201015
PMCPMC4900433
OpenAlexW1028570704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.