Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41814946›Full record

ArticleThe Clinical journal of pain2026

Methods for 2026 HELPinKids&Adults Clinical Practice Guideline for Reducing Distress During Vaccination.

Anna Taddio, Vibhuti Shah, C Meghan McMurtry, Eddy Lang, Noni E MacDonald, Kaytlin Constantin, Elizabeth Uleryk, HELPinKids&Adults¶¶

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Clinical journal of pain, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Reducing distress during vaccine injections: 2026 clinical practice guideline update.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors.

Anna TaddioProfessor, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.ORCID 0000-0003-4432-8975
Vibhuti ShahNeonatologist, Department of Paediatrics, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
C Meghan McMurtryProfessor, Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON.
Eddy LangProfessor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
Noni E MacDonaldProfessor Emerita, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS.
Kaytlin ConstantinResearch Associate, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Elizabeth UlerykEM Uleryk Consulting, Mississauga, ON.
HELPinKids&Adults¶¶

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe conducted a 10-year update of our 2015 clinical practice guideline (CPG) about reducing distress during vaccination. This article summarizes the methodological approach, the included clinical questions, and the characteristics of the evidence base.

methodsThe project was guided by several processes and frameworks, including AGREE-II, GRADE, GIN, and Cochrane. Eligible panel members voted on clinical questions and outcomes. Clinical questions were structured using PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) and grouped according to the 5P framework (process, procedural, physical, pharmacological, psychological), considering the target user (eg, clinician, vaccine recipient) and mechanism/site of action. Relevant trials were identified from our prior work and an updated interim literature search across 5 databases. Screening and extraction occurred in multiple steps, involving at least 2 individuals at each step. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (version 1.0). Point estimates and 95% Confidence Intervals were calculated using a random effects model. Overall certainty of evidence was assessed using 4 levels: high, moderate, low, and very low. The results and other prioritized factors were used to draft recommendations.

resultsAltogether, 47 clinical questions were included: 4 on process, 4 procedural, 23 physical, 2 pharmacological, and 14 psychological. Distress was selected as the critical outcome across all questions. The search identified 29,301 articles; 201 were eligible for inclusion. The majority of studies were conducted in high-income countries and evaluated the effectiveness of interventions in infant vaccine recipients. Most were associated with a high risk of bias.

conclusionRefinements to our updated methodology streamline the presentation and enable users to easily identify specific interventions that are relevant to their practice. While the evidence base for overlapping clinical questions increased substantially since the last review, the quality of the trials remains low. The results of the systematic reviews and guideline recommendations are available elsewhere.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicStress, PsychologicalVaccinationAdultHumansclinical practice guidelinefearpainsystematic reviewvaccination

Identifiers

PMID41814946
PMCPMC13354261

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.