A Meta-analysis to Assess the Effectiveness of a Procedural Scale to Measure Pain in a Child Aged 0-1 Year

Kassab, M; Ghedan, B; Hadoush, H; Alwardat, M

A Meta-analysis to Assess the Effectiveness of a Procedural Scale to Measure Pain in a Child Aged 0-1 Year

Kassab, M

Ghedan, B Hadoush, H Alwardat, M

Permalink

Publisher:: Jordan University of Science and Technology
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Jordan Journal of Nursing Research, 2, (2), pp. 70-80

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	A Meta-analysis to Assess the Effectiveness of a Procedural Scale to Measure Pain.pdf	Published version	781.42 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Kassab, M https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1417-2503
dc.contributor.author	Ghedan, B
dc.contributor.author	Hadoush, H
dc.contributor.author	Alwardat, M
dc.date.accessioned	2024-03-07T03:46:44Z
dc.date.available	2024-03-07T03:46:44Z
dc.identifier.citation	Jordan Journal of Nursing Research, 2, (2), pp. 70-80
dc.identifier.issn	2957-3785
dc.identifier.issn	2957-3785
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/176245
dc.description.abstract	<jats:p>Background: Infant pain liability has been assessed in several studies; nonetheless, diminutive is recognized about the relevance and effectiveness of using one type of pain scale affording to the type of painful stimulus and the infant’s age. Purpose: Our purpose was to conduct a metaanalysis to assess and report on the efficiency of using the procedural pain scale to measure pain in a child aged 0-1 year using non-pharmacological interventions. Methods: A systematic search was performed up to October 2021 in PubMed and Cochrane Library. The current review enrolled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) according to PRISMA guidelines. Cochrane's risk of bias assessment was performed to assess the studies' quality and risk of bias. Meta-analyses were completed by calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) at a 95% confidence interval (CI) using Review Manager Software. The review variables are: neonatal, pain, RCT and assessment. Results: The literature search returned 50 trials, but only 8 were involved in this meta-analysis. In most studies related to procedural pain (heel lance and vaccination), three commonly validated pain scales were used in all trials (neonatal infant pain scale NIPS, premature infant pain profile PIPP and neonatal pain, agitation and sedation scale NPASS. The 8 studies with 918 infant participants entered into analysis using effective pain scales (NIPS, PIPP and NPASS) to measure procedural pain effectively. Most studies used effective pain scales to measure procedural pain (NIPS, PIPP and NPASS). The meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in pain using NIPS, PIPP and NPASS tools. The most used was NIPS at 62.5%, followed by PIPP (25%) and NPASS (12.5%). The various interventions in studies reflected the strength of the used pain scale when assessing pain severity and supported the effect of non-pharmacological interventions (swaddling, mother holding and sucrose) in pain reduction compared with the control group (SMD 1.2, 95% CI -1.88 to -0.52, P =0.0005), I` = 95%, P>0.00001. Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, it has been reported that the pain scales used were an appropriate measure of the outcome of pain reduction. The type and accuracy of the validation of pain scales are also essential when selecting tools for a clinical trial. Implications for Nursing: The pain scales used in studies are appropriate to assess pain when measuring procedural pain (heel lance and needle-related procedures such as vaccination). Pediatric nurses should take care of selecting appropriate tools to assess pain in children before managing the pain. Further, pediatric nurses should be aware of that the inconsistency about the best tool for children is related to several factors. One is related to matching the pain tool to the age group and type of pain</jats:p>
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Jordan University of Science and Technology
dc.relation.ispartof	Jordan Journal of Nursing Research
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.14525/jjnr.v2i2.08
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.title	A Meta-analysis to Assess the Effectiveness of a Procedural Scale to Measure Pain in a Child Aged 0-1 Year
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2024-03-07T03:46:43Z
pubs.issue	2
pubs.publication-status	Published online
pubs.volume	2
utslib.citation.issue	2

Abstract:

Background: Infant pain liability has been assessed in several studies; nonetheless, diminutive is recognized about the relevance and effectiveness of using one type of pain scale affording to the type of painful stimulus and the infant’s age. Purpose: Our purpose was to conduct a metaanalysis to assess and report on the efficiency of using the procedural pain scale to measure pain in a child aged 0-1 year using non-pharmacological interventions. Methods: A systematic search was performed up to October 2021 in PubMed and Cochrane Library. The current review enrolled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) according to PRISMA guidelines. Cochrane's risk of bias assessment was performed to assess the studies' quality and risk of bias. Meta-analyses were completed by calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) at a 95% confidence interval (CI) using Review Manager Software. The review variables are: neonatal, pain, RCT and assessment. Results: The literature search returned 50 trials, but only 8 were involved in this meta-analysis. In most studies related to procedural pain (heel lance and vaccination), three commonly validated pain scales were used in all trials (neonatal infant pain scale NIPS, premature infant pain profile PIPP and neonatal pain, agitation and sedation scale NPASS. The 8 studies with 918 infant participants entered into analysis using effective pain scales (NIPS, PIPP and NPASS) to measure procedural pain effectively. Most studies used effective pain scales to measure procedural pain (NIPS, PIPP and NPASS). The meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in pain using NIPS, PIPP and NPASS tools. The most used was NIPS at 62.5%, followed by PIPP (25%) and NPASS (12.5%). The various interventions in studies reflected the strength of the used pain scale when assessing pain severity and supported the effect of non-pharmacological interventions (swaddling, mother holding and sucrose) in pain reduction compared with the control group (SMD 1.2, 95% CI -1.88 to -0.52, P =0.0005), I` = 95%, P>0.00001. Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, it has been reported that the pain scales used were an appropriate measure of the outcome of pain reduction. The type and accuracy of the validation of pain scales are also essential when selecting tools for a clinical trial. Implications for Nursing: The pain scales used in studies are appropriate to assess pain when measuring procedural pain (heel lance and needle-related procedures such as vaccination). Pediatric nurses should take care of selecting appropriate tools to assess pain in children before managing the pain. Further, pediatric nurses should be aware of that the inconsistency about the best tool for children is related to several factors. One is related to matching the pain tool to the age group and type of pain

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/176245