Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33622030›Full record

Trial reportClinical and experimental dental research2021

Evaluation of children's pain expression and behavior using audio visual distraction.

Alicia Delgado, Soo-Min Ok, Donald Ho, Tyler Lynd, Kyounga Cheon

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Comparison of behavioural, physiological, and self-reported pain responses in Pakistani children with dental pain: a descriptive cross-sectional study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

5 authors.

Alicia DelgadoDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Soo-Min OkDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Donald HoDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Tyler LyndDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Kyounga CheonDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0629-097X

Funding

NITRIC OXIDE RELEASING BIOMIMETRIC NANOMATRIX GELF OR ROOT REVITALIZATIONK08DE027401 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI CHEON, KYOUNGA · 2017 to 2022
$798k
NIDCR NIH HHS K08 DE027401
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDental anxiety distresses children and their families with consequent poor oral health and costly pediatric dental services. Children's behaviors could be modified using a distraction technique for improved dental treatment. The study evaluates the effects of an audio-visual distraction on children's behaviors and pain expressions during dental treatment. MATERIAL AND

methodsOne hundred healthy children, between 4 and 6 years of age, were randomly assigned to one of two groups: audio visual distraction (AVD, N = 61) group and control (CTR, N = 39) group. The pre and post pain expression was collected using a faces pain rating scale from the participated children. Children's behavior was evaluated using the Frankl behavior rating scale by the assigned dentist. Data was analyzed using chi-squared tests and analysis of variance.

resultsThe AVD group demonstrated more "definitely positive" behavior (91.8%) compared to the CTR group (35.9%) based on the Frankl scale evaluation from pre- and post-treatment (p < 0.0001). The pain rating scale did not demonstrate a significant difference in post-treatment pain scales (p = 0.2073) or changes in pain (p = 0.1532) between the AVD group and CTR group.

conclusionsThe AVD is an effective distraction tool for young children during dental treatment regardless of child's subjective pain expression.

Indexed as

Child BehaviorPainChildChild, PreschoolHumansPain Measurementaudio-visual distractionchildren's behavior guidancepain rating scalespediatric dental clinic

Identifiers

PMID33622030
PMCPMC8543459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.