Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42322312

Effectiveness of Social Robots in Relieving Children's and Adolescents' Anxiety, Pain, Fear and Stress in Perioperative Nursing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Kauppinen Miia, Forsman Aku, Kerimaa Heli, et al. · Journal of clinical nursing · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.1111/jocn.70411

Findings

Population Children and adolescents (0 to 21 years) undergoing surgery, dental treatment or other perioperative care

4 findings

Social robot (socially assistive or humanoid robot)Control (standard care or no robot)Postoperative anxiety (Facial Image Scale)
Postoperative · Paediatric dental treatment (Kasimoglu 2020, 2023)
MD -0.51 [-0.78, -0.23]
Moderate
Downgraded: risk of bias
2 studies · 302 participants
Social robot (socially assistive or humanoid robot)Control (standard care or no robot)Preoperative pulse rate (beats/min)
Preoperative · Paediatric dental treatment (Kasimoglu 2020, 2023)
MD -2.01 [-5.73, 1.71]
Very low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency
2 studies · 302 participants
Social robot (socially assistive or humanoid robot)Control (standard care or no robot)Preoperative anxiety (Facial Image Scale)
Preoperative · Paediatric dental treatment (Kasimoglu 2020, 2023)
MD -0.25 [-0.53, 0.03]
Low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
2 studies · 302 participants
Social robot (socially assistive or humanoid robot)Control (standard care or no robot)Postoperative pulse rate (beats/min)
Postoperative · Paediatric dental treatment (Kasimoglu 2020, 2023)
MD -8.41 [-11.77, -5.05]
Moderate
Downgraded: risk of bias
2 studies · 302 participants

Included primary studies 7

Open in Studies
StudyYearAlso included byOutcomes it informs hereTrial data
Kasimoglu et al. 2020
Robotic approach to the reduction of dental anxiety in children.
PMID:32730719
20202 other reviewsPreoperative anxiety (Facial Image Scale); Postoperative anxiety (Facial Image Scale); Preoperative pulse rate (beats/min); Postoperative pulse rate (beats/min)not extracted yet
Beraldo et al. 2019
A preliminary investigation of using humanoid social robots as non-pharmacological techniques with children
DOI:10.1109/arso46408.2019.8948760
2019this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Franconi et al. 2023
Preoperative anxiety management in children. Benefits of humanoid robots: an experimental study.
PMID:38145215
2023this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Kasimoglu et al. 2023
The Impact of a Humanoid Robot on Children’s Dental Anxiety, Behavior and Salivary Amylase Levels: A Randomized Clinical Trial
DOI:10.4274/jpr.galenos.2023.01979
2023this review onlyPreoperative anxiety (Facial Image Scale); Postoperative anxiety (Facial Image Scale); Preoperative pulse rate (beats/min); Postoperative pulse rate (beats/min)not extracted yet
Lapedriza et al. 2024
Deploying a Robotic ride-on Car in the Hospital to Reduce the Stress of Pediatric Patients before Surgery
DOI:10.1145/3610978.3641081
2024this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Lee-Krueger et al. 2021
Children's Pain During IV Induction: A Randomized-Controlled Trial With the MEDi® Robot.
PMID:33764470
2021this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Topçu et al. 2023
The effect of an interactive robot on children's post-operative anxiety, mobilization, and parents' satisfaction; randomized controlled…
PMID:36437131
2023this review onlynot statednot extracted yet

Overlap with other reviews

Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.

Review question

ElementPlanned (methods)Found (results)
PopulationChildren or adolescents aged 0-21 years having a surgical operation or treatmentChildren and adolescents aged 3-19 years undergoing dental treatment, minor surgery or painful procedures (n=663)
InterventionSocial robot, socially assistive robot or humanoid robotHumanoid robots (6 studies) and a robotic ride-on car (1 study)
ComparisonControl group (standard care or any other intervention)Standard care or other distraction; one study without control group
OutcomesPain, anxiety, fear and stressAnxiety (FIS, CSA, STAI, mYPAS, CEMS, Likert), pulse, pain (FPS-R), fear (CFS), stress (salivary alpha-amylase)
Study designsRCTs and quasi-experimental studies4 RCTs and 3 quasi-experimental studies (n=7)
TimingNot specifiedPre-, intra- and postoperative

AMSTAR 2 items

Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.

ItemExtractor AExtractor BAgree
1Research question includes PICO componentsYesYesyes
2Protocol established before the reviewcriticalPartial YesPartial Yesyes
3Choice of study designs explainedNoNoyes
4Comprehensive literature searchcriticalPartial YesPartial Yesyes
5Study selection in duplicateYesYesyes
6Data extraction in duplicateYesYesyes
7List of excluded studies with reasonscriticalNoNoyes
8Included studies described in detailYesPartial Yesno
9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycriticalRCT: Yes · NRSI: Partial YesRCT: Yes · NRSI: Partial Yesyes
10Funding of included studies reportedNoNoyes
11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscriticalNRSI: N/A · RCT: YesRCT: No · NRSI: N/Ano
12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled resultsNoNoyes
13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcriticalYesYesyes
14Heterogeneity explainedYesYesyes
15Publication bias investigatedcriticalNoNoyes
16Conflicts of interest reportedYesYesyes
OverallCritically LowCritically Lowyes