You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Efficacy of the Buzzy® device for pain management of children during needle-related procedures: a systematic review protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-018-0738-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ariane Ballard, Christelle Khadra, Samara Adler, Evelyne Doyon-Trottier, Sylvie Le May |
| Abstract |
Needle-related procedures are the most important source of pain in children in hospital setting. Unmanaged pain could result in short- and long-term physiological, psychological, and emotional consequences. Although the efficacy of numerous interventions has been evaluated, procedural pain management is often suboptimal in children undergoing needle-related procedures. The main objective of this systematic review is to examine the evidence for the efficacy of the Buzzy® device for needle-related procedural pain in children. An electronic search will be conducted in the following databases: CENTRAL, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL. There will be no restriction regarding the language, date of publication, and publication status. Eligible studies will be randomized controlled trials using the Buzzy® device for pain management in children undergoing needle-related procedures. Selection of studies, data extraction and management, assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence will be performed by two independent reviewers. A third researcher will be consulted in case of discrepancies. Depending on the availability and quality of the data as well as clinical and statistical heterogeneity, a meta-analysis will be performed. Otherwise, findings will be qualitatively reported. This will be the first systematic review to examine the efficacy of the Buzzy® device on pain management of children during needle-related procedures. Results of this review will guide clinical practice and recommendations for further research to improve procedural pediatric pain management. PROSPERO CRD42017076531. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 98 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 40 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 15% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 46 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,268,012
of 23,070,218 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#186
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,811
of 330,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#7
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,070,218 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.