ArticleBMJ open2025
Measurement properties of instruments to assess medical fear in children: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intervention Effect of Child Life Specialists on Paediatric Patients: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Child: care, health and development · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChildren's medical fear refers to the negative emotional experiences, including fear, anxiety and nervousness, that arise when children are confronted with medical procedures and related events during healthcare encounters. This phenomenon exerts substantial negative impacts on treatment adherence, procedural cooperation and therapeutic outcomes, thereby emerging as a critical focus in modern paediatric medicine and psychiatric care. The establishment of precise assessment protocols serves as the cornerstone for developing effective intervention strategies. Despite the proliferation of assessment instruments targeting paediatric medical anxiety, there remains a notable paucity of rigorous methodological evaluation regarding their psychometric properties and clinical utility. This systematic review aims to bridge the existing gap between theoretical frameworks and clinical application by conducting a comprehensive evaluation of measurement properties of instruments designed to assess children's medical fear, with particular attention to their reliability, validity and clinical applicability across diverse patient populations and healthcare settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study protocol has been developed in strict accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines, ensuring methodological rigour and transparency. A comprehensive search of literature will be conducted across four English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL via EBSCOhost and PsycINFO via ProQuest) and three Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data and SinoMed) from inception to 30 September 2025. The systematic review will incorporate comprehensive evaluation of measurement instruments assessing children's medical fear across multiple modalities, including self-report measures, observer-rated scales, behavioural observation protocols and semi-structured clinical interviews. The psychometric evaluation framework will encompass five critical domains: reliability, validity, responsiveness to clinical change, interpretability of scores and clinical utility in diverse healthcare settings. We will include primary quantitative studies published in English or Chinese. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval will not be required. The results of this systematic review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420250656564.
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.