-
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology... Jul 2021Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are key instruments to implement the practice of evidence-based medicine. We aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and...
CONTEXT
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are key instruments to implement the practice of evidence-based medicine. We aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and variations in CPGs recommendations on the diagnosis and management of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL until December 2020 for all evidence-based CPGs and consensus statements on PCOS. We extracted data in duplicate to map clinical recommendations across prespecified disease domains and assessed CPGs methodological quality of using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research & Evaluation II tool.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
We included 13 PCOS CPGs published between 2007 and 2018. CPGs recommendations were mostly focused on screening for and managing metabolic disease (12/13, 92%), followed by cardiovascular risk assessment (10/13, 77%). Mental health (8/13, 62%) and diagnosis in adolescents (7/13, 54%) were the least reported domains. Most CPGs had a high quality for scope and purpose description (12/13, 92%) while stakeholder's involvement and applicability of recommendations to clinical practice were appropriate in only 2 CPGs (2/13, 15%). We identified inconsistency in recommendations on PCOS diagnosis in adolescents, optimal lifestyle interventions, hirsutism and acne treatments, interventions to reduce the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, the frequency and screening criteria for metabolic and cardiovascular disease, and optimal screening tools for mental health illness in women with PCOS.
CONCLUSION
Current CPGs on the diagnosis and management of PCOS vary in their scope and methodological quality, which may hinder evidence translation into clinical practice. We identified disease domains with existing evidence gap to guide future research and guideline updates.
Topics: Disease Management; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Humans; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quality Assurance, Health Care
PubMed: 33839790
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgab232 -
Nutrients Nov 2021Various nutritional therapies have been proposed in rheumatoid arthritis, particularly diets rich in ω-3 fatty acids, which may lead to eicosanoid reduction. Our aim... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Various nutritional therapies have been proposed in rheumatoid arthritis, particularly diets rich in ω-3 fatty acids, which may lead to eicosanoid reduction. Our aim was to investigate the effect of potentially anti-inflammatory diets (Mediterranean, vegetarian, vegan, ketogenic) on pain. The primary outcome was pain on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes were C-reactive protein levels, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, health assessment questionnaire, disease activity score 28, tender/swollen joint counts, weight, and body mass index. We searched MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (Elsevier), and CINAHL for studies published from database inception to 12 November 2021. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted study data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed a meta-analysis with all eligible randomized controlled trials using RevMan 5. We used mean differences or standardized mean differences and the inverse variance method of pooling using a random-effects model. The search retrieved 564 unique publications, of which we included 12 in the systematic review and 7 in the meta-analysis. All studies had a high risk of bias and the evidence was very low. The main conclusion is that anti-inflammatory diets resulted in significantly lower pain than ordinary diets (-9.22 mm; 95% CI -14.15 to -4.29; = 0.0002; 7 RCTs, 326 participants).
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthralgia; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Clinical Trials as Topic; Diet, Healthy; Diet, Ketogenic; Diet, Mediterranean; Diet, Vegan; Diet, Vegetarian; Female; Humans; Inflammation; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Pain Management; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34959772
DOI: 10.3390/nu13124221 -
Obesity Facts 2021The very low-calorie ketogenic diet (VLCKD) has been recently proposed as an appealing nutritional strategy for obesity management. The VLCKD is characterized by a low... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The very low-calorie ketogenic diet (VLCKD) has been recently proposed as an appealing nutritional strategy for obesity management. The VLCKD is characterized by a low carbohydrate content (<50 g/day), 1-1.5 g of protein/kg of ideal body weight, 15-30 g of fat/day, and a daily intake of about 500-800 calories.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the current document is to suggest a common protocol for VLCKD and to summarize the existing literature on its efficacy in weight management and weight-related comorbidities, as well as the possible side effects.
METHODS
This document has been prepared in adherence with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Literature searches, study selection, methodology development, and quality appraisal were performed independently by 2 authors and the data were collated by means of a meta-analysis and narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
Of the 645 articles retrieved, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed, revealing 4 main findings. First, the VLCKD was shown to result in a significant weight loss in the short, intermediate, and long terms and improvement in body composition parameters as well as glycemic and lipid profiles. Second, when compared with other weight loss interventions of the same duration, the VLCKD showed a major effect on reduction of body weight, fat mass, waist circumference, total cholesterol and triglyceridemia as well as improved insulin resistance. Third, although the VLCKD also resulted in a significant reduction of glycemia, HbA1c, and LDL cholesterol, these changes were similar to those obtained with other weight loss interventions. Finally, the VLCKD can be considered a safe nutritional approach under a health professional's supervision since the most common side effects are usually clinically mild and easily to manage and recovery is often spontaneous.
CONCLUSIONS
The VLCKD can be recommended as an effective dietary treatment for individuals with obesity after considering potential contra-indications and keeping in mind that any dietary treatment has to be personalized. Prospero Registry: The assessment of the efficacy of VLCKD on body weight, body composition, glycemic and lipid parameters in overweight and obese subjects: a meta-analysis (CRD42020205189).
Topics: Adult; Diet, Ketogenic; Humans; Obesity; Obesity Management; Overweight; Weight Loss
PubMed: 33882506
DOI: 10.1159/000515381 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Medication errors are preventable events that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the healthcare... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Medication errors are preventable events that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the healthcare professional or patient. Medication errors in hospitalised adults may cause harm, additional costs, and even death.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of interventions to reduce medication errors in adults in hospital settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 16 January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies investigating interventions aimed at reducing medication errors in hospitalised adults, compared with usual care or other interventions. Outcome measures included adverse drug events (ADEs), potential ADEs, preventable ADEs, medication errors, mortality, morbidity, length of stay, quality of life and identified/solved discrepancies. We included any hospital setting, such as inpatient care units, outpatient care settings, and accident and emergency departments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Where necessary, we extracted and reanalysed ITS study data using piecewise linear regression, corrected for autocorrelation and seasonality, where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included 65 studies: 51 RCTs and 14 ITS studies, involving 110,875 participants. About half of trials gave rise to 'some concerns' for risk of bias during the randomisation process and one-third lacked blinding of outcome assessment. Most ITS studies presented low risk of bias. Most studies came from high-income countries or high-resource settings. Medication reconciliation -the process of comparing a patient's medication orders to the medications that the patient has been taking- was the most common type of intervention studied. Electronic prescribing systems, barcoding for correct administering of medications, organisational changes, feedback on medication errors, education of professionals and improved medication dispensing systems were other interventions studied. Medication reconciliation Low-certainty evidence suggests that medication reconciliation (MR) versus no-MR may reduce medication errors (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.74; 3 studies; n=379). Compared to no-MR, MR probably reduces ADEs (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.80; 3 studies, n=1336 ; moderate-certainty evidence), but has little to no effect on length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.30 days, 95%CI -1.93 to 1.33 days; 3 studies, n=527) and quality of life (MD -1.51, 95%CI -10.04 to 7.02; 1 study, n=131). Low-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may reduce medication errors (OR 0.21, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.48; 8 studies, n=2648) and may increase ADEs (OR 1.34, 95%CI 0.73 to 2.44; 3 studies, n=2873). Compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may have little to no effect on length of stay (MD -0.25, 95%CI -1.05 to 0.56; 6 studies, 3983). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that this intervention probably has little to no effect on mortality during hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.7; 2 studies, n=1000), and on readmissions at one month (RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.14; 2 studies, n=997); and low-certainty evidence suggests that the intervention may have little to no effect on quality of life (MD 0.00, 95%CI -14.09 to 14.09; 1 study, n=724). Low-certainty evidence suggests that database-assisted MR conducted by pharmacists, versus unassisted MR conducted by pharmacists, may reduce potential ADEs (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.64; 2 studies, n=3326), and may have no effect on length of stay (MD 1.00, 95%CI -0.17 to 2.17; 1 study, n=311). Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR performed by trained pharmacist technicians, versus pharmacists, may have little to no difference on length of stay (MD -0.30, 95%CI -2.12 to 1.52; 1 study, n=183). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR before admission may increase the identification of discrepancies compared with MR after admission (MD 1.27, 95%CI 0.46 to 2.08; 1 study, n=307). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that multimodal interventions probably increase discrepancy resolutions compared to usual care (RR 2.14, 95%CI 1.81 to 2.53; 1 study, n=487). Computerised physician order entry (CPOE)/clinical decision support systems (CDSS) Moderate-certainty evidence shows that CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors compared to paper-based systems (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.31 to 1.79; 2 studies, n=88). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that, compared with standard CPOE/CDSS, improved CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.74 to 0.97; 2 studies, n=630). Low-certainty evidence suggests that prioritised alerts provided by CPOE/CDSS may prevent ADEs compared to non-prioritised (inconsequential) alerts (MD 1.98, 95%CI 1.65 to 2.31; 1 study; participant numbers unavailable). Barcode identification of participants/medications Low-certainty evidence suggests that barcoding may reduce medication errors (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.59 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=50,545). Reduced working hours Low-certainty evidence suggests that reduced working hours may reduce serious medication errors (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.09; 1 study, n=634). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Feedback on prescribing errors Low-certainty evidence suggests that feedback on prescribing errors may reduce medication errors (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.67; 4 studies, n=384). Dispensing system Low-certainty evidence suggests that dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=1775).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to usual care, medication reconciliation, CPOE/CDSS, barcoding, feedback and dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors and ADEs. However, the results are imprecise for some outcomes related to medication reconciliation and CPOE/CDSS. The evidence for other interventions is very uncertain. Powered and methodologically sound studies are needed to address the identified evidence gaps. Innovative, synergistic strategies -including those that involve patients- should also be evaluated.
Topics: Adult; Hospitalization; Hospitals; Humans; Medication Errors; Medication Reconciliation; Pharmacists
PubMed: 34822165
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009985.pub2 -
Anaesthesia Aug 2021The aim of this systematic review was to develop recommendations for the management of postoperative pain after primary elective total hip arthroplasty, updating the...
The aim of this systematic review was to develop recommendations for the management of postoperative pain after primary elective total hip arthroplasty, updating the previous procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) guidelines published in 2005 and updated in July 2010. Randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses published between July 2010 and December 2019 assessing postoperative pain using analgesic, anaesthetic, surgical or other interventions were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. Five hundred and twenty studies were initially identified, of which 108 randomised trials and 21 meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Peri-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain include: paracetamol; cyclo-oxygenase-2-selective inhibitors; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; and intravenous dexamethasone. In addition, peripheral nerve blocks (femoral nerve block; lumbar plexus block; fascia iliaca block), single-shot local infiltration analgesia, intrathecal morphine and epidural analgesia also improved pain. Limited or inconsistent evidence was found for all other approaches evaluated. Surgical and anaesthetic techniques appear to have a minor impact on postoperative pain, and thus their choice should be based on criteria other than pain. In summary, the analgesic regimen for total hip arthroplasty should include pre-operative or intra-operative paracetamol and cyclo-oxygenase-2-selective inhibitors or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, continued postoperatively with opioids used as rescue analgesics. In addition, intra-operative intravenous dexamethasone 8-10 mg is recommended. Regional analgesic techniques such as fascia iliaca block or local infiltration analgesia are recommended, especially if there are contra-indications to basic analgesics and/or in patients with high expected postoperative pain. Epidural analgesia, femoral nerve block, lumbar plexus block and gabapentinoid administration are not recommended as the adverse effects outweigh the benefits. Although intrathecal morphine 0.1 mg can be used, the PROSPECT group emphasises the risks and side-effects associated with its use and provides evidence that adequate analgesia may be achieved with basic analgesics and regional techniques without intrathecal morphine.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 34015859
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15498 -
Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences May 2020Aromatherapy as an alternative and complementary medicine is a well-known method for reducing the symptoms of various physiological processes such as labor experience....
BACKGROUND
Aromatherapy as an alternative and complementary medicine is a well-known method for reducing the symptoms of various physiological processes such as labor experience. The aim of this study was to systematically review the currently available evidences evaluating the use of aromatherapy for management of labor pain and anxiety.
METHODS
In a systematic review, 5 databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scientific Information Database [SID]) were searched, from database inception up to December 2019. Keywords used included (aromatherapy OR ""essential oil" OR "aroma*") AND (pain OR anxiety) AND (labor OR delivery). Using the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' method; the risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 33 studies were verified to meet our inclusion criteria. Most of the included studies were conducted in Iran. Aromatherapy was applied using inhalation, massage, footbath, birthing pool, acupressure, and compress. The most popularly used essential oil in the studies was lavender (13 studies), either as a single essential oil or in a combination with other essential oils. Most of included studies confirmed the positive effect of aromatherapy in reducing labor pain and anxiety.
CONCLUSION
The evidences from this study suggest that aromatherapy, as a complementary and alternative modality, can help in relieving maternal anxiety and pain during labor.
Topics: Anxiety; Aromatherapy; Female; Humans; Labor Pain; Obstetric Labor Complications; Pain Management; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32874088
DOI: 10.4314/ejhs.v30i3.16 -
Journal of Nursing Management Oct 2022The aim of this review was to explore literature from January 2017 to December 2021 for specific aspects of care ethics related to nursing workload in the acute care... (Review)
Review
AIM
The aim of this review was to explore literature from January 2017 to December 2021 for specific aspects of care ethics related to nursing workload in the acute care setting.
BACKGROUND
High nursing workload is associated with adverse outcomes for nurses as well as patients. Nursing workload goes beyond patient-to-nurse ratios and encompasses patient, nurse and organizational factors.
EVALUATION
This qualitative systematic review was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The four features of care ethics related to nursing workload guided the review of qualitative studies in MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, and synthesized findings were presented in the four phases of caring.
KEY ISSUES
Key issues include ethical dilemmas, time pressure, shared moral burden and managerial support.
CONCLUSION
To reduce nursing workload, a care ethics perspective can provide solutions through fortifying interprofessional relationships and enhancing empathetic actions.
IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT
Situational, individual and team approaches to management allows for incorporation of personal values and ethics of care to support patient-centred care. Leadership initiating conversations and being proactive about workload can lead to an improved work environment for both the nurse and the nurse manager.
Topics: Humans; Workload; Nurse-Patient Relations; Qualitative Research; Leadership; Morals; Ethics, Nursing
PubMed: 35704019
DOI: 10.1111/jonm.13723 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Sep 2021Complex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved...
BACKGROUND
Complex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved outcomes including early ambulation and early discharge.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after complex spine surgery.
DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES
A systematic review using the PROcedure SPECific postoperative pain managemenT methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in the English language from January 2008 to April 2020 assessing postoperative pain after complex spine surgery using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases.
RESULTS
Out of 111 eligible studies identified, 31 randomised controlled trials and four systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 specific-inhibitors or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous ketamine infusion and regional analgesia techniques including epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Limited evidence was found for local wound infiltration, intrathecal and epidural opioids, erector spinae plane block, thoracolumbar interfascial plane block, intravenous lidocaine, dexmedetomidine and gabapentin.
CONCLUSIONS
The analgesic regimen for complex spine surgery should include pre-operative or intra-operative paracetamol and COX-2 specific inhibitors or NSAIDs, continued postoperatively with opioids used as rescue analgesics. Other recommendations are intra-operative ketamine and epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Although there is procedure-specific evidence in favour of intra-operative methadone, it is not recommended as it was compared with shorter-acting opioids and due to its limited safety profile. Furthermore, the methadone studies did not use non-opioid analgesics, which should be the primary analgesics to ultimately reduce overall opioid requirements, including methadone. Further qualitative randomised controlled trials are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of these recommended analgesics on postoperative pain relief.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 34397527
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001448 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies May 2022To identify and descriptively compare medication recommendations among low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPG). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify and descriptively compare medication recommendations among low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPG).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, Index to Chiropractic Literature, AMED, CINAHL, and PEDro to identify CPGs that described the management of mechanical LBP in the prior five years. Two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts and potentially relevant full text were considered for eligibility. Four investigators independently applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument for critical appraisal. Data were extracted for pharmaceutical intervention, the strength of recommendation, and appropriateness for the duration of LBP.
RESULTS
316 citations were identified, 50 full-text articles were assessed, and nine guidelines with global representation met the eligibility criteria. These CPGs addressed pharmacological treatments with or without non-pharmacological treatments. All CPGS focused on the management of acute, chronic, or unspecified duration of LBP. The mean overall AGREE II score was 89.3% (SD 3.5%). The lowest domain mean score was for applicability, 80.4% (SD 5.2%), and the highest was Scope and Purpose, 94.0% (SD 2.4%). There were ten classifications of medications described in the included CPGs: acetaminophen, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, oral corticosteroids, skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs), and atypical opioids.
CONCLUSIONS
Nine CPGs, included ten medication classes for the management of LBP. NSAIDs were the most frequently recommended medication for the treatment of both acute and chronic LBP as a first line pharmacological therapy. Acetaminophen and SMRs were inconsistently recommended for acute LBP. Meanwhile, with less consensus among CPGs, acetaminophen and antidepressants were proposed as second-choice therapies for chronic LBP. There was significant heterogeneity of recommendations within many medication classes, although oral corticosteroids, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, and antibiotics were not recommended by any CPGs for acute or chronic LBP.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Benzodiazepines; Humans; Low Back Pain; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 35562756
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-022-00435-3 -
Paediatric Anaesthesia Dec 2022Medical procedures are often accompanied by pain and anxiety in pediatric patients. A relatively new technique to reduce pediatric pain and anxiety is virtual reality.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Medical procedures are often accompanied by pain and anxiety in pediatric patients. A relatively new technique to reduce pediatric pain and anxiety is virtual reality. Virtual reality is both applied as a distraction tool and as an exposure tool to prepare patients for medical procedures. Research into the application of virtual reality in medical settings is rapidly evolving. This meta-analysis is an update of the meta-analysis of Eijlers et al. investigating the effectiveness of virtual reality as an intervention tool on pain and anxiety in pediatric patients undergoing medical procedures.
METHODS
We searched the databases Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsycINFO. For each of these databases, different search strategies were developed. The search period from the meta-analysis from Eijlers et al., reaching until April 2018, was extended to December 2020. Pain and anxiety outcomes during medical procedures were compared for virtual reality and standard care conditions for various medical procedures.
RESULTS
The search yielded 1824 articles, of which 13 met our inclusion criteria. Combined with 13 articles of Eijlers' review study, this resulted in 26 articles. Virtual reality was applied as distraction (n = 23) during medical procedures or as exposure (n = 4) before medical procedures. The effect of virtual reality distraction was mostly studied in patients during venous access (n = 10). The overall weighted standardized mean difference for virtual reality distraction was -0.67 (95% CI, -0.89 to -0.45; p < .001) on patient-reported pain (based on 21 studies) and -0.74 (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.48; p < .001) on patient-reported anxiety (based on 10 studies). The effect of virtual reality as an exposure tool on patient-reported anxiety was significant too (standardized mean difference = -0.58; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.01; p < .05).
DISCUSSION
The current updated systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that virtual reality is a useful tool to reduce pain and anxiety in pediatric patients undergoing a range of medical procedures as it significantly decreases pain and anxiety outcomes when compared to care as usual.
Topics: Child; Humans; Anxiety; Pain; Virtual Reality; Pain Management; Pediatrics
PubMed: 35993398
DOI: 10.1111/pan.14546