Cited by 44Dental Anxiety and Anesthesia TechniquesPediatric Pain Management TechniquesAnesthesia and Sedative Agents

Facilitating coping behavior in children prior to dental general anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial

CAMPBELL, CAROLINE, HOSEY, MARIE‐THERESE, McHUGH, SIOBHAN·2005·Pediatric Anesthesia

Abstract

Summary: Background : The aim of this study was to establish the efficacy of two different preparation packages, a paper‐based cartoon and an interactive computer, at facilitating coping behavior in children undergoing dental general anesthetic (DGA) tooth extraction. Method : A total of 198 children were allocated randomly to computer, cartoon or control groups. A Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale (MCDAS) were used to compare preoperative anxiety levels between the three study groups. Blinded observers then scored behavior at both anesthesia induction and upon recovery using a VAS for each (0 = coped/no distress and 10 = no coping/high distress). Results : The children's median age was 5 (range 3–10) years, 57% were boys, a median of seven teeth were extracted (range 1–20). Preoperative anxiety was similar for all preparation groups; with 24% of all children categorized ‘phobic’ using MCDAS. The median induction (coping) VAS level for both the computer and the cartoon groups was ‘1’ (range 0–10), compared with the control group level of ‘3’ (range 0–10). The median recovery (coping) VAS levels were: computer group: 0 (range 0–10), cartoon group: 4 (range 0–10) and control group: 2.5 (range 0–10). The Mann–Whitney U‐test showed that the computer group coped significantly better than the control group at induction (P = 0.014) and significantly better than the cartoon group upon recovery (P = 0.016). The statistical power for detecting differences between groups (computer/cartoon versus control) was calculated to be 90%, based on pilot study data. Conclusions : The computer preparation package facilitated coping behavior in children undergoing DGA induction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2004.01565.x

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
CAMPBELL, C., HOSEY, M., & McHUGH, S.
Affiliations
University of Glasgow (GB)
Venue
Pediatric Anesthesia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-06-10
Volume
15
Issue
10
Pages
831-838
ISSN
  • 1155-5645 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-9592
OpenAlex
W2048463246
Cited by
44
References
25
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pediatric Anesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
Keywords
dental general anaesthesia, preoperative anxiety, coping styles, pediatric patients, tooth extraction, anesthesia induction, anesthesia recovery, dental anxiety
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Anesthesia, Dental, Anesthesia, General, Anxiety, Cartoons as Topic, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Male, Tooth Extraction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review