Question · asked by 1 review

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs other local anaesthetic: Self- or observational assessment of intraoperative distress/pain/acceptance of treatment during provision of LA: pain-related behaviour (any disruptive behaviour/sudden reaction/movement)

Population
Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia
Intervention
The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system)
Comparison
other local anaesthetic
Outcome
Self- or observational assessment of intraoperative distress/pain/acceptance of treatment during provision of LA: pain-related behaviour (any disruptive behaviour/sudden reaction/movement)

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs Traditional local anaesthetic
Self- or observational assessment of intraoperative distress/pain/acceptance of treatment during provision of LA: pain-related behaviour (any disruptive behaviour/sudden reaction/movement) · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia · During LA (injection is the intervention)
Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental… (2020) · Cochrane All outcomes
pain-related behaviour (any disruptive behaviour/sudden reaction/movement); 4 studies reported a benefit in using the wand while the remaining studies results suggested no difference between the 2 methods of delivering…6 studies · 704 participantsVery low

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment
2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
2019-05Not listedNot assessed

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

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.