Question · asked by 1 review
Camouflage syringe vs Conventional syringe: Self- or observational assessment of intraoperative distress/pain/acceptance of treatment during provision of LA: pain-related behaviour (crying)
- Population
- Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia
- Intervention
- Camouflage syringe
- Comparison
- Conventional syringe
- Outcome
- Self- or observational assessment of intraoperative distress/pain/acceptance of treatment during provision of LA: pain-related behaviour (crying)
It is very uncertain whether camouflage syringe changes self- or observational assessment of intraoperative… compared with conventional syringe (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Camouflage syringe vs Conventional syringe Self- or observational assessment of intraoperative distress/pain/acceptance of treatment during provision of LA: pain-related behaviour (crying) · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia · During LA (injection is the intervention) It is very uncertain whether camouflage syringe changes self- or observational assessment of intraoperative… compared with conventional syringe (very low certainty). Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental… (2020) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.02 [0.00, 0.37] | 1 study · 100 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2019-05 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.