↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pain and distress outcomes in infants and children: a systematic review
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1590/1414-431x20175984
Pubmed ID
Authors

N.C.A.C. Oliveira, C.M. Gaspardo, M.B.M. Linhares

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 19%
Student > Bachelor 19 17%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 3%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 37 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 20%
Psychology 10 9%
Computer Science 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 38 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,314,251
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#109
of 1,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,204
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#5
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,254 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.