Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38135307›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2023

Acoustic stimulation for relieving pain during venipuncture: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Yosuke Yamada, Mineaki Kitamura, Emi Inayama, Masatsugu Kishida, Yuki Kataoka, Tatsuyoshi Ikenoue

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Yosuke YamadaDepartment of Nephrology, Shinshu University Hospital, Matsumoto, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-0869-4919
Mineaki KitamuraDepartment of Nephrology, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-0003-8645
Emi InayamaDepartment of Nephrology, Mihama Narita Clinic, Chiba, Japan.
Masatsugu KishidaNational Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Japan.
Yuki KataokaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Kyoto Min-iren Asukai Hospital, Koto, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-7982-5213
Tatsuyoshi IkenoueGraduate School of Medicine /Human Health Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan ikenoue.tatsuyoshi.4e@kyoto-u.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0003-3717-8788
Kyoto University · JPNagasaki University · JPNational Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center · JPShiga University · JPShinshu University Hospital · JPTomitahama Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess whether acoustic stimulations relieve venipuncture pain and determine which stimulation is the most effective type.

designSystematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases were systematically searched in September 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of acoustic stimulations on patients undergoing venipuncture were eligible. Acoustic stimulations were classified into seven categories: five types of acoustic stimulations (music medicine (researcher selected), music medicine (patient selected), music therapy, sounds with linguistic meaning and sounds without linguistic meaning) and two controls (only wearing headphones and no treatment). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes included self-reported pain intensity assessed during venipuncture and treatment cost, and secondary outcomes were self-reported mental distress and adverse events.

resultsOf 6406 citations, this network meta-analysis included 27 studies including 3416 participants; the mean age was 31.5 years, and 57% were men. Among the five types of acoustic stimulations, only musical interventions, such as music medicine (patient selected) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.44 (95% CI: -0.84 to -0.03); low confidence), music medicine (researcher selected) (SMD -0.76 (95% CI: -1.10 to -0.42); low confidence) and music therapy (SMD -0.79 (95% CI: -1.44 to -0.14); low confidence), were associated with improved pain relief during venipuncture compared with no treatment. No significant differences existed between the types of acoustic stimulations. Free-of-charge acoustic stimulations were provided to patients, and no specific adverse events were reported. In many studies, the risk of bias was rated high because of the difficulty of blinding the intervention to the participants and the self-reported pain outcome.

conclusionsMusic interventions were associated with reduced venipuncture pain. Comparisons between types of acoustic stimulations revealed no significant differences. Therefore, music intervention could be a safe and inexpensive pain relief method for venipuncture. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022303852.

Indexed as

Music TherapyPhlebotomyAcoustic StimulationAdultFemaleHumansMalePainCOMPLEMENTARY MEDICINEPain managementSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID38135307
PMCPMC11148677
OpenAlexW4390111217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.