Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26352916›Full record

SynthesisThe Clinical journal of pain2015

Interventions for Individuals With High Levels of Needle Fear: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trials.

C Meghan McMurtry, Melanie Noel, Anna Taddio, Martin M Antony, Gordon J G Asmundson, Rebecca Pillai Riddell, Christine T Chambers, Vibhuti Shah, 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 43 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Using Non-Violent Discipline Tools: Evidence Suggesting the Importance of Attunement.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

C Meghan McMurtry*Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph †Children's Health Research Institute ‡Department of Paediatrics, Western University, London ∥Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy ‡‡Department of Psychiatry ##Health Policy Management and Evaluation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto ¶The Hospital for Sick Children #Department of Psychology, Ryerson University ††Department of Psychology, York University ¶¶Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON **Department of Psychology, University of Regina, Regina, SK §§Departments of Pediatrics, Psychology & Neuroscience, Dalhousie University ∥∥Centre for Pediatric Pain Research, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada §Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, AB, Canada.
Melanie Noel
Anna Taddio
Martin M Antony
Gordon J G Asmundson
Rebecca Pillai Riddell
Christine T Chambers
Vibhuti Shah
HELPinKids&Adults Team
Children’s Health Research Institute · CAUniversity of Calgary · CA3M (United States) · USHospital for Sick Children · CAToronto Metropolitan University · CAUniversity of Guelph · CA

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of exposure-based psychological and physical interventions for the management of high levels of needle fear and/or phobia and fainting in children and adults. DESIGN/

methodsA systematic review identified relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of children, adults, or both with high levels of needle fear, including phobia (if not available, then populations with other specific phobias were included). Critically important outcomes were self-reported fear specific to the feared situation and stimulus (psychological interventions) or fainting (applied muscle tension). Data were pooled using standardized mean difference (SMD) or relative risk with 95% confidence intervals.

resultsThe systematic review included 11 trials. In vivo exposure-based therapy for children 7 years and above showed benefit on specific fear (n=234; SMD: -1.71 [95% CI: -2.72, -0.7]). In vivo exposure-based therapy with adults reduced fear of needles posttreatment (n=20; SMD: -1.09 [-2.04, -0.14]) but not at 1-year follow-up (n=20; SMD: -0.28 [-1.16, 0.6]). Compared with single session, a benefit was observed for multiple sessions of exposure-based therapy posttreatment (n=93; SMD: -0.66 [-1.08, -0.24]) but not after 1 year (n=83; SMD: -0.37 [-0.87, 0.13]). Non in vivo e.g., imaginal exposure-based therapy in children reduced specific fear posttreatment (n=41; SMD: -0.88 [-1.7, -0.05]) and at 3 months (n=24; SMD: -0.89 [-1.73, -0.04]). Non in vivo exposure-based therapy for adults showed benefit on specific fear (n=68; SMD: -0.62 [-1.11, -0.14]) but not procedural fear (n=17; SMD: 0.18 [-0.87, 1.23]). Applied tension showed benefit on fainting posttreatment (n=20; SMD: -1.16 [-2.12, -0.19]) and after 1 year (n=20; SMD: -0.97 [-1.91, -0.03]) compared with exposure alone.

conclusionsExposure-based psychological interventions and applied muscle tension show evidence of benefit in the reduction of fear in pediatric and adult populations.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdolescentAdultDatabases, BibliographicFearHumansNeedlesPhobic DisordersPsychotherapy

Identifiers

PMID26352916
PMCPMC4900415
OpenAlexW1468765874

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.