Pain and distress outcomes in infants and children: a systematic review

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Oliveira,N.C.A.C.
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Gaspardo,C.M., Linhares,M.B.M.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2017000700302
Resumo: The aim of the present study was to systematically review the recent literature about pain and distress outcomes in children and critically analyze the methodological quality of the reports. The systematic review was based on the PRISMA statement and performed by selecting articles that are indexed in scientific databases. The methodological quality of reports was examined using STROBE statement, for observational studies, and CONSORT statement, for randomized controlled trials. The PedIMMPACT consensus was used to evaluate the psychometric quality of pain instruments. We analyzed 23 empirical studies, including 14 randomized controlled trials, seven cross-sectional studies, and two studies with cohort designs. Fourteen studies included preschool- and schoolchildren, and nine studies included infants. Regarding studies with infants, pain responses were evaluated by heart rate, crying and behavioral observation scales, and distress was evaluated only by salivary cortisol. Four-handed care and sensorial saturation interventions were used to evaluate efficacy to reduce pain and distress responses. Concerning studies with children, both pain and distress responses were evaluated by self- and hetero-reports, behavioral observation and/or physiological measures. Distraction was effective for reducing pain and distress during burn dressing changes and needle procedures, and healing touch intervention reduced distress and pain in chronic patients. All of the studies scored at least 60% in the methodological quality assessment. The pain outcomes included measures of validity that were classified as well-established by the PedIMMPACT. This systematic review gathers scientific evidence of distress-associated pain in children. Pain and distress were measured as distinct constructs, and their associations were poorly analyzed.
id ABDC-1_bafd877ec519e0516678d63fad3b99dc
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0100-879X2017000700302
network_acronym_str ABDC-1
network_name_str Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
repository_id_str
spelling Pain and distress outcomes in infants and children: a systematic reviewChildrenDevelopmentDistressPainReviewThe aim of the present study was to systematically review the recent literature about pain and distress outcomes in children and critically analyze the methodological quality of the reports. The systematic review was based on the PRISMA statement and performed by selecting articles that are indexed in scientific databases. The methodological quality of reports was examined using STROBE statement, for observational studies, and CONSORT statement, for randomized controlled trials. The PedIMMPACT consensus was used to evaluate the psychometric quality of pain instruments. We analyzed 23 empirical studies, including 14 randomized controlled trials, seven cross-sectional studies, and two studies with cohort designs. Fourteen studies included preschool- and schoolchildren, and nine studies included infants. Regarding studies with infants, pain responses were evaluated by heart rate, crying and behavioral observation scales, and distress was evaluated only by salivary cortisol. Four-handed care and sensorial saturation interventions were used to evaluate efficacy to reduce pain and distress responses. Concerning studies with children, both pain and distress responses were evaluated by self- and hetero-reports, behavioral observation and/or physiological measures. Distraction was effective for reducing pain and distress during burn dressing changes and needle procedures, and healing touch intervention reduced distress and pain in chronic patients. All of the studies scored at least 60% in the methodological quality assessment. The pain outcomes included measures of validity that were classified as well-established by the PedIMMPACT. This systematic review gathers scientific evidence of distress-associated pain in children. Pain and distress were measured as distinct constructs, and their associations were poorly analyzed.Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica2017-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2017000700302Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research v.50 n.7 2017reponame:Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Researchinstname:Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)instacron:ABDC10.1590/1414-431x20175984info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessOliveira,N.C.A.C.Gaspardo,C.M.Linhares,M.B.M.eng2019-03-19T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0100-879X2017000700302Revistahttps://www.bjournal.org/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpbjournal@terra.com.br||bjournal@terra.com.br1414-431X0100-879Xopendoar:2019-03-19T00:00Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research - Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Pain and distress outcomes in infants and children: a systematic review
title Pain and distress outcomes in infants and children: a systematic review
spellingShingle Pain and distress outcomes in infants and children: a systematic review
Oliveira,N.C.A.C.
Children
Development
Distress
Pain
Review
title_short Pain and distress outcomes in infants and children: a systematic review
title_full Pain and distress outcomes in infants and children: a systematic review
title_fullStr Pain and distress outcomes in infants and children: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Pain and distress outcomes in infants and children: a systematic review
title_sort Pain and distress outcomes in infants and children: a systematic review
author Oliveira,N.C.A.C.
author_facet Oliveira,N.C.A.C.
Gaspardo,C.M.
Linhares,M.B.M.
author_role author
author2 Gaspardo,C.M.
Linhares,M.B.M.
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Oliveira,N.C.A.C.
Gaspardo,C.M.
Linhares,M.B.M.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Children
Development
Distress
Pain
Review
topic Children
Development
Distress
Pain
Review
description The aim of the present study was to systematically review the recent literature about pain and distress outcomes in children and critically analyze the methodological quality of the reports. The systematic review was based on the PRISMA statement and performed by selecting articles that are indexed in scientific databases. The methodological quality of reports was examined using STROBE statement, for observational studies, and CONSORT statement, for randomized controlled trials. The PedIMMPACT consensus was used to evaluate the psychometric quality of pain instruments. We analyzed 23 empirical studies, including 14 randomized controlled trials, seven cross-sectional studies, and two studies with cohort designs. Fourteen studies included preschool- and schoolchildren, and nine studies included infants. Regarding studies with infants, pain responses were evaluated by heart rate, crying and behavioral observation scales, and distress was evaluated only by salivary cortisol. Four-handed care and sensorial saturation interventions were used to evaluate efficacy to reduce pain and distress responses. Concerning studies with children, both pain and distress responses were evaluated by self- and hetero-reports, behavioral observation and/or physiological measures. Distraction was effective for reducing pain and distress during burn dressing changes and needle procedures, and healing touch intervention reduced distress and pain in chronic patients. All of the studies scored at least 60% in the methodological quality assessment. The pain outcomes included measures of validity that were classified as well-established by the PedIMMPACT. This systematic review gathers scientific evidence of distress-associated pain in children. Pain and distress were measured as distinct constructs, and their associations were poorly analyzed.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2017000700302
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2017000700302
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1414-431x20175984
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research v.50 n.7 2017
reponame:Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
instname:Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)
instacron:ABDC
instname_str Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)
instacron_str ABDC
institution ABDC
reponame_str Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
collection Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research - Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv bjournal@terra.com.br||bjournal@terra.com.br
_version_ 1754302945789214720