A positioning pillow to improve lumbar puncture success rate in paediatric haematology-oncology patients: a randomized controlled trial

Non-pharmacological management of infant and young child procedural pain

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence of the long-term implications of unrelieved pain during infancy, it is evident that infant pain is still under-managed and unmanaged. Inadequately managed pain in infancy, a period of exponential development, can have implications across the lifespan. Therefore, a comprehensive and systematic review of pain management strategies is integral to appropriate infant pain management. This is an update of a previously published review update in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2015, Issue 12) of the same title.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse events of non-pharmacological interventions for infant and child (aged up to three years) acute pain, excluding kangaroo care, sucrose, breastfeeding/breast milk, and music.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE-Ovid platform, EMBASE-OVID platform, PsycINFO-OVID platform, CINAHL-EBSCO platform and trial registration websites (ClinicalTrials.gov; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) (March 2015 to October 2020). An update search was completed in July 2022, but studies identified at this point were added to 'Awaiting classification' for a future update.  We also searched reference lists and contacted researchers via electronic list-serves.  We incorporated 76 new studies into the review.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Participants included infants from birth to three years in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cross-over RCTs that had a no-treatment control comparison. Studies were eligible for inclusion in the analysis if they compared a non-pharmacological pain management strategy to a no-treatment control group (15 different strategies). In addition, we also analysed studies when the unique effect of adding a non-pharmacological pain management strategy onto another pain management strategy could be assessed (i.e. additive effects on a sweet solution, non-nutritive sucking, or swaddling) (three strategies). The eligible control groups for these additive studies were sweet solution only, non-nutritive sucking only, or swaddling only, respectively. Finally, we qualitatively described six interventions that met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review, but not in the analysis.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The outcomes assessed in the review were pain response (reactivity and regulation) and adverse events. The level of certainty in the evidence and risk of bias were based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach. We analysed the standardised mean difference (SMD) using the generic inverse variance method to determine effect sizes.  MAIN RESULTS: We included total of 138 studies (11,058 participants), which includes an additional 76 new studies for this update. Of these 138 studies, we analysed 115 (9048 participants) and described 23 (2010 participants) qualitatively. We described qualitatively studies that could not be meta-analysed due to being the only studies in their category or statistical reporting issues. We report the results of the 138 included studies here. An SMD effect size of 0.2 represents a small effect, 0.5 a moderate effect, and 0.8 a large effect. The thresholds for the I2 interpretation were established as follows: not important (0% to 40%); moderate heterogeneity (30% to 60%); substantial heterogeneity (50% to 90%); considerable heterogeneity (75% to 100%). The most commonly studied acute procedures were heel sticks (63 studies) and needlestick procedures for the purposes of vaccines/vitamins (35 studies). We judged most studies to have high risk of bias (103 out of 138), with the most common methodological concerns relating to blinding of personnel and outcome assessors. Pain responses were examined during two separate pain phases: pain reactivity (within the first 30 seconds after the acutely painful stimulus) and immediate pain regulation (after the first 30 seconds following the acutely painful stimulus). We report below the strategies with the strongest evidence base for each age group. In preterm born neonates, non-nutritive sucking may reduce pain reactivity (SMD -0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to -0.11, moderate effect; I2 = 93%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.27, moderate effect; I2 = 81%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. Facilitated tucking may also reduce pain reactivity (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.58, large effect; I2 = 93%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.26, moderate effect; I2 = 87%, considerable heterogeneity); however, this is also based on very low-certainty evidence. While swaddling likely does not reduce pain reactivity in preterm neonates (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.04, no effect; I2 = 91%, considerable heterogeneity), it has been shown to possibly improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -1.21, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.38, large effect; I2 = 89%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. In full-term born neonates, non-nutritive sucking may reduce pain reactivity (SMD -1.13, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.68, large effect; I2 = 82%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -1.49, 95% CI -2.20 to -0.78, large effect; I2 = 92%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence.  In full-term born older infants, structured parent involvement was the intervention most studied. Results showed that this intervention has little to no effect in reducing pain reactivity (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.03, no effect; I2 = 46%, moderate heterogeneity) or improving immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.21, no effect; I2 = 74%, substantial heterogeneity), based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence. Of these five interventions most studied, only two studies observed adverse events, specifically vomiting (one preterm neonate) and desaturation (one full-term neonate hospitalised in the NICU) following the non-nutritive sucking intervention. The presence of considerable heterogeneity limited our confidence in the findings for certain analyses, as did the preponderance of evidence of very low to low certainty based on GRADE judgements.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, non-nutritive sucking, facilitated tucking, and swaddling may reduce pain behaviours in preterm born neonates. Non-nutritive sucking may also reduce pain behaviours in full-term neonates. No interventions based on a substantial body of evidence showed promise in reducing pain behaviours in older infants. Most analyses were based on very low- or low-certainty grades of evidence and none were based on high-certainty evidence. Therefore, the lack of confidence in the evidence would require further research before we could draw a definitive conclusion.

Effect of Child Position on Pain Experience During Lumbar Puncture: A Prospective Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of patient's position on pain and anxiety during lumbar puncture (LP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized controlled trial included children between 2 and 18 years old receiving at least 2 therapeutic LPs. They were randomly assigned to undergo lateral decubitus position or sitting position LP. Primary outcome was the maximum LP-induced pain, secondary endpoint the maximum LP-induced anxiety score.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients were randomized. For patients under 6 years old, mean of Face, Leg, Activity, Cry, and Consolability were 2.8/10±3.0 (median=1) at first time and 1.5±1.7 (median=1) at second time. For patients 6 to 18 years old, mean of visual analog scale were 2.2±2.2 (median=1.5) at first time and 3.2±2.8 (median=3) at second time. There was no significant differences according to position on anxiety among children.

CONCLUSIONS

Results did not demonstrate whether lateral decubitus position could generate less pain and anxiety than sitting position.

Comparison of Chloral Hydrate Solution, Hydroxyzine Syrup, and Lidocaine/Prilocaine Cream as Premedication for Lumbar Puncture in Children: A Double-Blind Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of oral hydroxyzine and chloral hydrate to topical lidocaine/prilocaine 2.5% cream as premedication in pediatric leukemia patients.

MATERIALS & METHODS

This double-blind clinical trial study was conducted on 70 leukemic and nonleukemic patients aged 3-11 years. The patients were divided into four groups. In group A, chloral hydrate solution was given to 18 patients. In group B, hydroxyzine syrup was used for 18 patients. In group C, chloral hydrate solution and lidocaine/prilocaine cream were used for 17 patients. In group D, hydroxyzine syrup and lidocaine/prilocaine cream were used for 17 patients. These groups were assessed and judged based on the visual analog scale (VAS). The side effects of the drugs were also recorded.

RESULTS

In this study, 54.3% (n=38) and 45.7% (n=32) of the cases were female and male, respectively. Furthermore, 77%, 7.2%, and 15.8% of the cases were reported with acute lymphocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, and infectious disease, respectively. The VAS results showed no difference in these four groups. Nontraumatic lumbar puncture (LP) (red blood cell<50) was observed in 97.1% of the cases.

CONCLUSION

Although premedications for LP with hydroxyzine syrup and chloral hydrate solution were not statistically effective in pain relief, they increased patient and parent satisfaction. Moreover, adding lidocaine/prilocaine cream does not improve the effectiveness of the drugs.

Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of a Cochrane Review (Issue 4, 2006). Pain and distress from needle-related procedures are common during childhood and can be reduced through use of psychological interventions (cognitive or behavioral strategies, or both). Our first review update (Issue 10, 2013) showed efficacy of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched six electronic databases for relevant trials: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; PsycINFO; Embase; Web of Science (ISI Web of Knowledge); and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We sent requests for additional studies to pediatric pain and child health electronic listservs. We also searched registries for relevant completed trials: clinicaltrials.gov; and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int.trialsearch). We conducted searches up to September 2017 to identify records published since the last review update in 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included peer-reviewed published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least five participants per study arm, comparing a psychological intervention with a control or comparison group. Trials involved children aged two to 19 years undergoing any needle-related medical procedure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed risks of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We examined pain and distress assessed by child self-report, observer global report, and behavioral measurement (primary outcomes). We also examined any reported physiological outcomes and adverse events (secondary outcomes). We used meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of identified psychological interventions relative to a comparator (i.e. no treatment, other active treatment, treatment as usual, or waitlist) for each outcome separately. We used Review Manager 5 software to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 trials (20 new for this update) with 5550 participants. Needle procedures primarily included venipuncture, intravenous insertion, and vaccine injections. Studies included children aged two to 19 years, with few trials focused on adolescents. The most common psychological interventions were distraction (n = 32), combined cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; n = 18), and hypnosis (n = 8). Preparation/information (n = 4), breathing (n = 4), suggestion (n = 3), and memory alteration (n = 1) were also included. Control groups were often 'standard care', which varied across studies. Across all studies, 'Risk of bias' scores indicated several domains at high or unclear risk, most notably allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessment, and selective reporting. We downgraded the quality of evidence largely due to serious study limitations, inconsistency, and imprecision.Very low- to low-quality evidence supported the efficacy of distraction for self-reported pain (n = 30, 2802 participants; SMD -0.56, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.33) and distress (n = 4, 426 participants; SMD -0.82, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.18), observer-reported pain (n = 11, 1512 participants; SMD -0.62, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.23) and distress (n = 5, 1067 participants; SMD -0.72, 95% CI -1.41 to -0.03), and behavioral distress (n = 7, 500 participants; SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.04). Distraction was not efficacious for behavioral pain (n = 4, 309 participants; SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.03). Very low-quality evidence indicated hypnosis was efficacious for reducing self-reported pain (n = 5, 176 participants; SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.32 to -0.48) and distress (n = 5, 176 participants; SMD -2.53, 95% CI -3.93 to -1.12), and behavioral distress (n = 6, 193 participants; SMD -1.15, 95% CI -1.76 to -0.53), but not behavioral pain (n = 2, 69 participants; SMD -0.38, 95% CI -1.57 to 0.81). No studies assessed hypnosis for observer-reported pain and only one study assessed observer-reported distress. Very low- to low-quality evidence supported the efficacy of combined CBT for observer-reported pain (n = 4, 385 participants; SMD -0.52, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.30) and behavioral distress (n = 11, 1105 participants; SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.14), but not self-reported pain (n = 14, 1359 participants; SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.03), self-reported distress (n = 6, 234 participants; SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.04), observer-reported distress (n = 6, 765 participants; SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.50), or behavioral pain (n = 2, 95 participants; SMD -0.65, 95% CI -2.36 to 1.06). Very low-quality evidence showed efficacy of breathing interventions for self-reported pain (n = 4, 298 participants; SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.22), but there were too few studies for meta-analysis of other outcomes. Very low-quality evidence revealed no effect for preparation/information (n = 4, 313 participants) or suggestion (n = 3, 218 participants) for any pain or distress outcome. Given only a single trial, we could draw no conclusions about memory alteration. Adverse events of respiratory difficulties were only reported in one breathing intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified evidence supporting the efficacy of distraction, hypnosis, combined CBT, and breathing interventions for reducing children's needle-related pain or distress, or both. Support for the efficacy of combined CBT and breathing interventions is new from our last review update due to the availability of new evidence. The quality of trials and overall evidence remains low to very low, underscoring the need for improved methodological rigor and trial reporting. Despite low-quality evidence, the potential benefits of reduced pain or distress or both support the evidence in favor of using these interventions in clinical practice.

Perceptions of parents and paediatricians on pain induced by bone marrow aspiration and lumbar puncture among children with acute leukaemia: a qualitative study in China

OBJECTIVE

To obtain in-depth insight into the perceptions of parents and paediatricians in China regarding current procedural pain management on bone marrow aspirations and lumbar punctures in paediatric haemato-oncology department.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study was conducted in a 4500-bed university hospital in northwest China. To collect data, in-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with parents of children with acute leukaemia (n=12) and haemato-oncology paediatricians (n=11) using purposive sampling. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The suffering of procedural pain among paediatric patients was not adequately recognised and properly treated at the paediatric haemato-oncology department. The current paediatric procedural pain management is inadequate for paediatric patients. Crucial factors were identified including lack of awareness about the damage of uncontrolled pain in children, parents' low supportive ability, the limited capacity to provide general analgesia by anaesthetists, inadequate knowledge in the usage of analgesia and sedation and lack of efficient analgesic for children's procedural pain. The participants strongly expected optimal interventions to improve paediatric procedural pain management.

CONCLUSIONS

The result suggested a perceived and actual poor management of paediatric procedural pain in haemato-oncology department in northwest China. A relevant pain management education programme for paediatricians and parents as well as an effective pain medication are urgently needed in northwest China.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Identifier: ChiCTR-INR-16007989.

A review of supportive care interventions to manage distress in young children with cancer and parents

BACKGROUND

There is a positive relationship between parent and young child distress during cancer treatment. Dimensions of parent/child distress are multifaceted and associated with family function and quality of life outcomes. A critical examination of intervention research is needed to identify how dimensions of parent/child distress and related outcomes are being addressed.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to summarize and describe supportive care intervention research for young children with cancer and parents and to discuss implications for family-based intervention research.

METHODS

This systematic review examined supportive care intervention studies with randomized and nonrandomized designs for young children with cancer (aged 3-8 years) and/or their parents published between 1991 and 2011. Twenty-two studies that met specific inclusion criteria were reviewed to determine intervention type, intervention components, targeted outcomes and findings, and whether interventions addressed child, parent, or parent/child needs.

RESULTS

Most interventions focused primarily on procedural support, followed by parent education/counseling. Most studies targeted the child or the parent alone; very few targeted parent/child dyads. Outcomes focused primarily on child distress, anxiety, and pain. Quality of life and coping were rarely measured, and no studies examined family function. This body of research is emerging, with most interventions in the developmental pilot phase and few efficacy trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings confirm underrepresentation of young children in supportive care intervention research and the need for more complex, family-based interventions to advance young child intervention research beyond acute, procedural distress.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The authors discuss the implications of review findings for clinical practice.

Non-pharmacological management of infant and young child procedural pain

BACKGROUND

Infant acute pain and distress is commonplace. Infancy is a period of exponential development. Unrelieved pain and distress can have implications across the lifespan.  This is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 10 2011 entitled 'Non-pharmacological management of infant and young child procedural pain'.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for infant and child (up to three years) acute pain, excluding kangaroo care, and music. Analyses were run separately for infant age (preterm, neonate, older) and pain response (pain reactivity, immediate pain regulation). 

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 2 of 12, 2015), MEDLINE-Ovid platform (March 2015), EMBASE-OVID platform (April 2011 to March 2015), PsycINFO-OVID platform (April 2011 to February 2015), and CINAHL-EBSCO platform (April 2011 to March 2015). We also searched reference lists and contacted researchers via electronic list-serves. New studies were incorporated into the review. We refined search strategies with a Cochrane-affiliated librarian. For this update, nine articles from the original 2011 review pertaining to Kangaroo Care were excluded, but 21 additional studies were added.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Participants included infants from birth to three years. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or RCT cross-overs that had a no-treatment control comparison were eligible for inclusion in the analyses. However, when the additive effects of a non-pharmacological intervention could be assessed, these studies were also included. We examined studies that met all inclusion criteria except for study design (e.g. had an active control) to qualitatively contextualize results. There were 63 included articles in the current update.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study quality ratings and risk of bias were based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE approach. We analysed the standardized mean difference (SMD) using the generic inverse variance method.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-three studies, with 4905 participants, were analysed. The most commonly studied acute procedures were heel-sticks (32 studies) and needles (17 studies). The largest SMD for treatment improvement over control conditions on pain reactivity were: non-nutritive sucking-related interventions (neonate: SMD -1.20, 95% CI -2.01 to -0.38) and swaddling/facilitated tucking (preterm: SMD -0.89; 95% CI -1.37 to -0.40). For immediate pain regulation, the largest SMDs were: non-nutritive sucking-related interventions (preterm: SMD -0.43; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.23; neonate: SMD -0.90; 95% CI -1.54 to -0.25; older infant: SMD -1.34; 95% CI -2.14 to -0.54), swaddling/facilitated tucking (preterm: SMD -0.71; 95% CI -1.00 to -0.43), and rocking/holding (neonate: SMD -0.75; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.30). Fifty two of our 63 trials did not report adverse events. The presence of significant heterogeneity limited our confidence in the findings for certain analyses, as did the preponderance of very low quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that different non-pharmacological interventions can be used with preterms, neonates, and older infants to significantly manage pain behaviors associated with acutely painful procedures. The most established evidence was for non-nutritive sucking, swaddling/facilitated tucking, and rocking/holding. All analyses reflected that more research is needed to bolster our confidence in the direction of the findings. There are significant gaps in the existing literature on non-pharmacological management of acute pain in infancy.

Non-pharmacological management of infant and young child procedural pain

BACKGROUND

Infant acute pain and distress is commonplace. Infancy is a period of exponential development. Unrelieved pain and distress can have implications across the lifespan. 

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for infant and child (up to three years) acute pain, excluding breastmilk, sucrose, and music. Analyses accounted for infant age (preterm, neonate, older) and pain response (pain reactivity, pain-related regulation). 

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2011), EMBASE (1980 to April 2011), PsycINFO (1967 to April 2011), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 to 2011), Dissertation Abstracts International (1980 to 2011) and www.clinicaltrials.gov. We also searched reference lists and contacted researchers via electronic list-serves.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Participants included infants from birth to three years. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or RCT cross-overs that had a no-treatment control comparison were eligible for inclusion in the analyses. We examined studies that met all inclusion criteria except for study design (e.g. had an active control) to qualitatively contextualize results.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We refined search strategies with three Cochrane-affiliated librarians. At least two review authors extracted and rated 51 articles. Study quality ratings were based on a scale by Yates and colleagues. We analyzed the standardized mean difference (SMD) using the generic inverse variance method. We also provided qualitative descriptions of 20 relevant but excluded studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-one studies, with 3396 participants, were analyzed. The most commonly studied acute procedures were heel-sticks (29 studies) and needles (n = 10 studies). The largest SMD for treatment improvement over control conditions on pain reactivity were: non-nutritive sucking-related interventions (preterm: SMD -0.42; 95% CI -0.68 to -0.15; neonate: SMD -1.45, 95% CI -2.34 to -0.57), kangaroo care (preterm: SMD -1.12, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.21), and swaddling/facilitated tucking (preterm: SMD -0.97; 95% CI -1.63 to -0.31). For immediate pain-related regulation, the largest SMDs were: non-nutritive sucking-related interventions (preterm: SMD -0.38; 95% CI -0.59 to -0.17; neonate: SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.25), kangaroo care (SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.50 to -0.03), swaddling/facilitated tucking (preterm: SMD -0.75; 95% CI -1.14 to -0.36), and rocking/holding (neonate: SMD -0.75; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.30). The presence of significant heterogeneity limited our confidence in the lack of findings for certain analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that different non-pharmacological interventions can be used with preterms, neonates, and older infants to significantly manage pain behaviors associated with acutely painful procedures.