SynthesisChild: care, health and development2026
Intervention Effect of Child Life Specialists on Paediatric Patients: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Child: care, health and development, 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
backgroundChild life specialists (CLSs) are increasingly recognized in paediatric practice, yet evidence regarding the efficacy of CLS intervention in children remains insufficient. This review aims to comprehensively evaluate the intervention effects of CLSs on paediatric patients.
methodsSix databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and APA PsycArticles) were systematically searched using subject terms and free terms. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing CLS effects on paediatric pain and psychological outcomes were included, with searches from database inception through 30 January 2026. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using Stata/MP 18.0, calculating standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) via a random-effects model.
resultsThe initial search yielded 1140 records, and 12 studies (n = 1096 participants) were ultimately included in the analysis. The included studies primarily originated from the United States and Canada. Intervention settings included inpatient units, outpatient clinics and emergency departments. The meta-analysis revealed that, compared to conditions without CLS involvement, the presence of CLSs may alleviate children's pain (SMD = -0.28, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.07, p = 0.009), distress (SMD = -0.26, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.05, p = 0.018) and anxiety (SMD = -0.37, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.01, p = 0.007) during medical procedures and treatments. However, the effect on alleviating children's fear was not statistically significant (SMD = -0.11, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.10, p = 0.290).
conclusionCurrent evidence supports the potential of CLSs to alleviate paediatric pain, psychological distress and anxiety. However, their efficacy in reducing fear requires further validation. Despite the uncertainties involved, the potential value of CLSs in clinical practice warrants broader recognition.
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.