SynthesisThe Clinical journal of pain2026
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pharmacological and Physical Interventions Directed at the Injection Site for Reducing Distress During Vaccine Injections.
Synthesis 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 12 papers, 11 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reducing distress during vaccine injections: 2026 clinical practice guideline update.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026Guideline
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Procedural Interventions for Reducing Distress During Vaccine Injections.The Clinical journal of pain · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Procedural Interventions for Reducing Distress During Vaccine Injections.The Clinical journal of pain · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Procedural Interventions for Reducing Distress During Vaccine Injections.The Clinical journal of pain · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Physical Interventions Administered Orally for Infants for Reducing Distress During Vaccine Injections.The Clinical journal of pain · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Physical Interventions Administered Orally for Infants for Reducing Distress During Vaccine Injections.The Clinical journal of pain · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Physical Interventions Administered Orally for Infants for Reducing Distress During Vaccine Injections.The Clinical journal of pain · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Physical Interventions Administered Orally for Infants for Reducing Distress During Vaccine Injections.The Clinical journal of pain · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Physical Interventions Administered Orally for Infants for Reducing Distress During Vaccine Injections.The Clinical journal of pain · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Process Interventions for Reducing Distress During Vaccine Injections.The Clinical journal of pain · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Procedural Interventions for Reducing Distress During Vaccine Injections.The Clinical journal of pain · 2026Pooled it
- HELPinKids&Adults 2026 Guideline Update on Reducing Distress During Vaccine Injections: Overview of Methods and the Evidence Base.The Clinical journal of pain · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of pharmacological and physical interventions that target the injection site area on reducing distress during vaccinations in vaccine recipients across the lifespan.
methodsGRADE and Cochrane methodology were used. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ProQuest Dissertations to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Included interventions and critical outcomes were determined using a voting process. Studies were reviewed and data extracted by at least 2 reviewers. Meta-analyses were conducted separately for infants (0 to 12 mo) and older vaccine recipients (>12 mo), with individual interventions included as subgroups. Point estimates were calculated using standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random effects model. Results were summarized according to certainty of evidence (4 levels: high to very low) and effect size (4 levels: trivial to large).
resultsA total of 71 studies were included with a certainty of evidence ranging from high to very low. The magnitude of effect exceeded the minimum threshold (SMD ≥ 0.2) in all but 1 analysis. For infants, topical anesthesia and manual tapping are preferred interventions for reducing distress (critical outcome), followed by manual or device-facilitated pressure, cold/ice, or vibration with an external device with cold. Use of a vapocoolant is next, followed by vibration with an external device without cold. Manual rubbing has insufficient evidence of benefit. For older vaccine recipients, topical anesthesia is preferred, followed by manual tapping. Vibration with an external device with or without cold, follows thereafter. Manual or device-facilitated pressure, cold/ice, or vapocoolant are less preferred, and the evidence is very uncertain for manual rubbing.
conclusionsAcross all ages, topical anesthetics and manual skin tapping emerge as preferred interventions. Implementation should consider the strength of the evidence base and vaccine recipient preferences.
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.