Trial reportScientific reports2026
A comparative study on buzzy device vs digital distraction technique for mitigating pain during venipuncture among hospitalised children: randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pain is a complex and unpleasant phenomenon, particularly in children, wherein frequent use of needle procedures during the process of hospitalisation significantly increases somatic and emotional distress in children. This randomised clinical trial was conducted among children aged 4-12 years admitted to a paediatric ward in Karnataka, India. Participants were randomly allocated to one of three arms: a Buzzy device intervention arm, a computer tablet distraction arm, or a control arm receiving routine care. Pain during venipuncture was assessed using the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R), scored on a 0-10 scale. A total of 96 children were randomised, with 32 allocated to each of the Buzzy device, computer tablet distraction, and control arms. Both distraction interventions significantly reduced the FPR-R pain score compared with the control arm. The mean FPS-R score was 0.31 ± 0.74 in the Buzzy device arm and 3.25 ± 1.95 in the computer tablet arm. The between-group differences in pain scores were statistically significant (p < 0.001), with the Buzzy device demonstrating greater effectiveness than the computer tablet distraction. The Buzzy device and distraction techniques significantly minimised FPS-R pain scores in children, with the Buzzy device being the most effective. These findings support the incorporation of such interventions into paediatric clinical practice to enhance patient comfort.Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2023/04/051864 registered on 21/04/2023).
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.