Centre for Pediatric Pain Research (West), 8th Floor Children's Site (K8536), IWK Health Centre, 5850/5980 University Avenue, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3K 6R8.
J Pediatr Psychol. 2010 Aug;35(7):693-703. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsp104. Epub 2009 Dec 4.
Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) support the efficacy of psychological interventions for procedural pain management. However, methodological limitations (e.g., inadequate randomization) have affected the quality of this research, thereby weakening RCT findings.
Detailed quality coding was conducted on 28 RCTs included in a systematic review of psychological interventions for pediatric procedural pain.
The majority of RCTs were of poor to low quality (criteria reported in <50% of RCTs). Commonly reported criteria addressed study background, conditions, statistical analyses, and interpretation of results. Commonly nonreported criteria included treatment administration, evaluation of treatment efficacy (effect sizes, summary statistics, intention-to-treat analyses), caregiver demographics, follow-up, and participant flow. Quality was greater in more recent trials, and did not vary by journal type (psychology vs. medical).
Despite poor quality ratings, quality reporting in psychological RCTs for pediatric procedural pain has improved over time. Recommendations for quality enhancement are provided.
系统评价随机对照试验（RCT）支持心理干预在程序疼痛管理中的疗效。然而，方法学上的局限性（例如，随机分配不充分）影响了该研究的质量，从而削弱了 RCT 的发现。
对系统评价中纳入的 28 项心理干预儿科程序疼痛的 RCT 进行详细的质量编码。
大多数 RCT 的质量较差或很低（<50%的 RCT 报告了标准）。常报告的标准涉及研究背景、条件、统计分析和结果解释。常未报告的标准包括治疗管理、治疗效果评估（效应大小、汇总统计、意向治疗分析）、照顾者人口统计学、随访和参与者流程。质量在更新的试验中更高，并且不受期刊类型（心理学与医学）的影响。
尽管质量评分较低，但儿科程序疼痛的心理 RCT 的质量报告随着时间的推移有所改善。提供了质量改进的建议。
