ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
The Influence of Patient-Centered Communication on Children's Anxiety and Use of Anesthesia for MR.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric brain MRI without sedation: Optimization by simulation.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Evaluating participant experiences and tolerability with MR Linac imaging.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Pediatric Anesthesia, Psychology, and Interventions: A Narrative Review.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to inspect the influence of patient-centered communication (PCC) with 4- to 10-year-old children on the use of anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging exams (MRs). Methods: A total of thirty children received the PCC and pre-simulated the exam with an MR toy. Another 30 children received routine information about the MR and pre-simulated the exam with the toy. Anesthesia use in these two groups was additionally compared with a previously existing group of children (n = 30) who had received only routine information about the exam (CG). Children’s anxiety was assessed with a self-report question plus heartbeat frequency. Children’s satisfaction was assessed through several questions. The analyses were based on group comparisons and regression. Results: A total of two children (7%) in the PCC + simulation group used sedation compared with 14 (47%) in the simulation group and 21 (70%) in the CG. Differences between the PCC + simulation and the other two groups were significant (p < 0.001), although not between the simulation and the CG. The decrease in anxiety was significantly greater (self-reported p < 0.001; heart rate p < 0.05) and satisfaction was higher (p = 0.001) in the PCC + simulation, when compared with the simulation group. Reduced anxiety was associated with less anesthesia use (OR 1.39; CI 1.07−1.79; p = 0.013). Conclusions: PCC + simulation was more effective than simulation and routine practice in decreasing children’s anxiety, increasing satisfaction, and reducing the use of anesthesia for MRs.
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.