PrintDownload PDFGet Adobe ReaderDownload to WordDownload as HTMLDownload as XMLCitation Manager
Save to Favorites
Guideline Summary
Guideline Title
Best evidence statement (BESt). Reducing pain for children and adolescents receiving injections.
Bibliographic Source(s)
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Best evidence statement (BESt). Reducing pain for children and adolescents receiving injections. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; 2013 Jan 16. 9 p. [9 references]
Guideline Status

This is the current release of the guideline.

Scope

Disease/Condition(s)

Conditions requiring injections

Guideline Category
Management
Clinical Specialty
Family Practice
Internal Medicine
Pediatrics
Intended Users
Advanced Practice Nurses
Nurses
Physician Assistants
Physicians
Guideline Objective(s)

To evaluate, in pediatric patients receiving injections, if pharmacological interventions (including topical anesthetic agents), psychological, and physical interventions versus no intervention, reduces pain during injections

Target Population

Children ranging from infancy to eighteen years of age, receiving an injection

Interventions and Practices Considered
  1. Sucrose solution
  2. Breastfeeding
  3. Holding the infant
  4. Distraction (age-appropriate)
  5. Topical agent containing lidocaine/prilocaine
  6. Sequential injection
  7. Rapid combined injection
  8. Preparation (developmentally appropriate)
  9. Positioning
  10. Breathing exercises (including blowing bubbles, using party blowers, deep breathing)
  11. Hypnosis
Major Outcomes Considered

Reduced pain level

Methodology

Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Searches of Electronic Databases
Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence

Search Strategy

  • Databases: BMJ, CINAHL, Cochrane Database, ERIC, Nursing Reference Center, Psycho Info, PubMed
  • Search Terms: Children, injections, immunization, pain, distress, EMLA, LMX-4, Gebauers Spray and Stretch, Zingo, Paineze, Synera, J-tip, Pediatric, Ice
  • Limits, Filters, Search Dates: 1992 – January, 2012, Articles in English only
Number of Source Documents

Not stated

Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence
Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence

Table of Evidence Levels

Quality Level Definition
1a† or 1b† Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies
2a or 2b Best study design for domain
3a or 3b Fair study design for domain
4a or 4b Weak study design for domain
5a or 5b General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline
5 Local Consensus

†a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study

Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Review of Published Meta-Analyses
Systematic Review
Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence

Not stated

Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Expert Consensus
Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations

Not stated

Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations

Table of Recommendation Strength

Strength Definition
It is strongly recommended that…

It is strongly recommended that…not…
When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is high support that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens. (or visa-versa for negative recommendations)
It is recommended that…

It is recommended that… not…
When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is moderate support that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens.
There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation…

Note: See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.

Cost Analysis

A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.

Method of Guideline Validation
Peer Review
Description of Method of Guideline Validation

This Best Evidence Statement has been reviewed against quality criteria by two independent reviewers from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Evidence Collaboration.

Recommendations

Major Recommendations

The strength of the recommendation (strongly recommended, recommended, or no recommendation) and the quality of the evidence (1a‒5b) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

  1. It is strongly recommended that age-appropriate interventions with strong evidence, be used to reduce pain during injections (Chambers et al., 2009 [1a]; Shah et al., 2009 [1a]; Taddio et al., 2009 [1a]; Uman et al., 2010 [1a]; Kassab et al., 2012 [1b]; Harrington et al., 2012 [2a]). See cells marked "Strongly" in Table 1 below. See Table 2 in the original guideline document for intervention-specific citations.

    Note: Combining an intervention with distraction is more effective than a single intervention (Uman et al., 2010 [1a]).

  2. It is recommended that, when strongly recommended interventions are not sufficient or feasible to reduce pain during injections, additional age-appropriate consensus-based interventions are used (Local Consensus [5]). See cells marked "Local Consensus" in Table 1 below. See Table 2 in the original guideline document for intervention-specific citations.

    Note: Combining an intervention with distraction is more effective than a single intervention (Uman et al., 2010 [1a]).

Table 1: Recommendations for Interventions by Developmental Level to Reduce Pain during Injections

  Infants Toddlers Preschool-age Children School-age Children Adolescents
Sucrose solution* Strongly -- -- -- --
Breastfeeding Strongly -- -- -- --
Holding the infant Strongly -- -- -- --
Distraction*, age-appropriate Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly
Topical agent, containing lidocaine/prilocaine Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly
Sequential injection* Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly
Rapid combined injection* Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly
Preparation*, developmentally appropriate -- Local consensus Strongly Strongly Local consensus
Positioning -- Local consensus Strongly Local consensus Local consensus
Breathing exercises*† -- -- Strongly Strongly Local consensus
Hypnosis* -- -- Strongly Strongly Strongly

Note: See the original guideline document for additional details on interventions.

* See the definitions under "Supporting Information" in the original guideline document.

†Including blowing bubbles, using party blowers, deep breathing, and breathing exercises

Definitions:

Table of Evidence Levels

Quality Level Definition
1a† or 1b† Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies
2a or 2b Best study design for domain
3a or 3b Fair study design for domain
4a or 4b Weak study design for domain
5a or 5b General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline
5 Local Consensus

†a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study

Table of Recommendation Strength

Strength Definition
It is strongly recommended that…

It is strongly recommended that…not…
When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is high support that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens. (or visa-versa for negative recommendations)
It is recommended that…

It is recommended that… not…
When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is moderate support that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens.
There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation…

Note: See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.

Clinical Algorithm(s)

None provided

Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

References Supporting the Recommendations
Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see the "Major Recommendations" field).

Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations

Potential Benefits

Reduced pain during injections

Potential Harms
  • Gagging and coughing were the minimal side effects noted when using the sucrose solution in infants
  • Lidocaine-prilocaine had minimal transient local skin reaction

Qualifying Statements

Qualifying Statements

This Best Evidence Statement addresses only key points of care for the target population; it is not intended to be a comprehensive practice guideline. These recommendations result from review of literature and practices current at the time of their formulation. This Best Evidence Statement does not preclude using care modalities proven efficacious in studies published subsequent to the current revision of this document. This document is not intended to impose standards of care preventing selective variances from the recommendations to meet the specific and unique requirements of individual patients. Adherence to this Statement is voluntary. The clinician in light of the individual circumstances presented by the patient must make the ultimate judgment regarding the priority of any specific procedure.

Implementation of the Guideline

Description of Implementation Strategy

Applicability Issues

Breastfeeding in infants, developmentally supportive positioning, and injection technique (the use of sequential injection and rapid combined injection) do not require additional funds, resources, or staffing. The use of developmentally appropriate preparation and distraction, deep breathing, and bubble blowing/party blowers can be taught to patients and caregivers. These interventions fall within the scope of practice of a Child Life Specialist. When involved, they can give recommendations to patients and caregivers on which techniques are most appropriate. At that time, the child and family can choose which of these options will best meet their needs. The additional time needed to involve these techniques or a Child Life Specialist may be counterbalanced by more cooperative patients, shorter length of time spent giving an injections, as well as increase family satisfaction. The use of sucrose and lidocaine/prilocaine poses a monetary cost. However, evidence shows the use of these products reduces pain for infants, children, and adolescents. Use of these products may increase compliance with injections, specifically vaccinations, in turn offsetting costs of pharmacological agents and increasing the overall health and wellbeing of children.

Implementation Tools
Audit Criteria/Indicators
For information about availability, see the Availability of Companion Documents and Patient Resources fields below.

Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories

IOM Care Need
Getting Better
Staying Healthy
IOM Domain
Effectiveness
Patient-centeredness

Identifying Information and Availability

Bibliographic Source(s)
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Best evidence statement (BESt). Reducing pain for children and adolescents receiving injections. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; 2013 Jan 16. 9 p. [9 references]
Adaptation

Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.

Date Released
2013 Jan 16
Guideline Developer(s)
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center - Hospital/Medical Center
Source(s) of Funding

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center

Guideline Committee

Not stated

Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline

Group/Team Members: Melissa Liddle, BS, CCLS, CTRS, Inpatient Psychiatry; Annette Bonjour, BS, CCLS, Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics; Courtney Tyra, MS, CCLS, GI/Colorectal Center for Children; Lauren Kathman, BS, CCLS, Complex Airway & Pediatric Primary Care Center; Jennifer Staab, MS, CCLS, Child Life Specialist at Denver Children's Hospital; Mary Ellen Meier, MSN, RN, CPN, Center for Professional Excellence and Business Integration: Research and Evidence Based Practice: Evidence Based Practice Mentor

Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest

Conflict of interest declaration forms are filed with the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Evidence-based Decision Making (CCHMC EBDM) group.

Guideline Status

This is the current release of the guideline.

Guideline Availability

Electronic copies: Available from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Web site External Web Site Policy.

Print copies: For information regarding the full-text guideline, print copies, or evidence-based practice support services contact the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Health James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org.

Availability of Companion Documents

The following are available:

Print copies: For information regarding the full-text guideline, print copies, or evidence-based practice support services contact the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Health James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org.

In addition, suggested process or outcome measures are available in the original guideline document External Web Site Policy.

Patient Resources

None available

NGC Status

This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on April 9, 2013.

Copyright Statement

This NGC summary is based on the original full-text guideline, which is subject to the following copyright restrictions:

Copies of this Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Best Evidence Statement (BESt) are available online and may be distributed by any organization for the global purpose of improving child health outcomes. Examples of approved uses of the BESt include the following:

  • Copies may be provided to anyone involved in the organization's process for developing and implementing evidence based care
  • Hyperlinks to the CCHMC website may be placed on the organization's website
  • The BESt may be adopted or adapted for use within the organization, provided that CCHMC receives appropriate attribution on all written or electronic documents
  • Copies may be provided to patients and the clinicians who manage their care

Notification of CCHMC at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org for any BESt adopted, adapted, implemented or hyperlinked by the organization is appreciated.

Disclaimer

NGC Disclaimer

The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.

Read full disclaimer...