Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41821515›Full record

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.

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

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 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
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

9 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.
Charlotte LogemanClinical Research Coordinator, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON.
Elizabeth UlerykEM Uleryk Consulting, Mississauga, ON.
HELPinKids&Adults##

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

VaccinationVaccinesHumansVaccinesfearpainpharmacological strategiesphysical strategiesrandomized controlled trialsystematic reviewvaccination

Identifiers

PMID41821515
PMCPMC13354268

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.