SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Artificial intelligence in pediatric pain: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPain is a challenging, multifaceted symptom reported by most pediatric patients. This systematic review aims to explore the progress and effectiveness of applying artificial intelligence (AI) technology in pediatric pain management.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted. The search combined pain-related terms ("Pain management", "Pain assessment", "Pain measurement", "Pain relief", "Pain control", "Analgesics", "Pediatric pain"), age-related terms ("Children", "pediatrics", "Neonate", "Infant"), and AI core sub-domain terms ("Artificial intelligence", "Machine learning", "Deep learning", "Convolutional neural network", "Support vector machine", "Random forest", "Long short-term memory") using strict Boolean operators (AND/OR/NOT) published up to March 20, 2026. AI models, their validation, and performance were summarized.
resultsThe analysis of 71 studies revealed distinct AI application patterns in pediatric pain management. Fifty-nine studies focused on pain assessment using deep learning (post-2020: 86.7%) and classical machine learning (pre-2015: 83.3%) through facial expression analysis (40.8%), multimodal fusion (25.4%), or physiological signals (9.9%). Most employed observational designs (57.7%) with small (<50 participants, 42.2%) to medium (50-200, 33.8%) samples, reflecting clinical data challenges. Multimodal approaches significantly outperformed unimodal methods (AUC difference: +0.13, p<0.01). The remaining 12 studies (16.9%) explored pain management, primarily using robot-assisted interventions with cognitive-behavioral strategies like guided breathing and gamification during procedural pain. However, a substantial proportion of the included studies (47.5% of assessment studies and 11 of 12 intervention studies) showed high risk of bias.
conclusionThis review offers substantiation that AI technology has been employed to enhance the efficiency of pain detection and assessment, thereby assisting healthcare professionals and patients in more adeptly managing acute pain. Future progress in precise pain assessment and management will depend on integrating deep learning with multimodal data and large clinical databases, alongside efforts to establish standardized datasets and validate models in real-world settings.
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.