Definition and assessment of fever-related discomfort in pediatric literature: a systematic review.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS European Journal of Pediatrics Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1007/s00431-024-05753-7
Gregorio P Milani, Ilaria Alberti, Alessia Bonetti, Silvia Garattini, Antonio Corsello, Paola Marchisio, Elena Chiappini
{"title":"Definition and assessment of fever-related discomfort in pediatric literature: a systematic review.","authors":"Gregorio P Milani, Ilaria Alberti, Alessia Bonetti, Silvia Garattini, Antonio Corsello, Paola Marchisio, Elena Chiappini","doi":"10.1007/s00431-024-05753-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Guidelines advocate that the symptomatic management of fever should prioritize alleviating the child's discomfort. We investigated the definition and assessment of discomfort in febrile children within the scientific pediatric literature. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines and preregistered on the Prospero database (CRD42023471590). Databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched. Studies addressing discomfort in febrile children were eligible. Out of 794 initially identified articles, 27 original studies and seven guidelines specifically used the term 'discomfort'. Only 14 original articles provided a definition of discomfort, revealing substantial heterogeneity and no clear-cut definition. Discomfort was often assessed subjectively, predominantly through parent or self-report, and only two studies used a scoring system for assessment. The definitions varied widely, with terms such as crying, irritability, shivering and chills, pain and distress, goosebumps commonly used and evaluation of observable modifications such as facial modifications. Overall, no consensus on a single, standardized definition was available.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review shows the absence of a standardized definition and assessment of discomfort in febrile children. The findings of the present analysis might be the basis for building a consensus and developing a new tool to evaluate discomfort.</p><p><strong>What is known: </strong>• Discomfort is currently considered the main criterion to guide antipyretic administration in children with fever. • Despite this clear-cut recommendation, it has been questioned whether a commonly accepted understanding and assessment of this condition exists.</p><p><strong>What is new: </strong>• This systematic review identifies a significant heterogeneity in definitions and assessment of discomfort in children with fever. • Both subjective parameters and observable modifications in physiological parameters should be included in a new and shared characterization of discomfort.</p>","PeriodicalId":11997,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"4969-4979"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11478972/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-024-05753-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Guidelines advocate that the symptomatic management of fever should prioritize alleviating the child's discomfort. We investigated the definition and assessment of discomfort in febrile children within the scientific pediatric literature. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines and preregistered on the Prospero database (CRD42023471590). Databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched. Studies addressing discomfort in febrile children were eligible. Out of 794 initially identified articles, 27 original studies and seven guidelines specifically used the term 'discomfort'. Only 14 original articles provided a definition of discomfort, revealing substantial heterogeneity and no clear-cut definition. Discomfort was often assessed subjectively, predominantly through parent or self-report, and only two studies used a scoring system for assessment. The definitions varied widely, with terms such as crying, irritability, shivering and chills, pain and distress, goosebumps commonly used and evaluation of observable modifications such as facial modifications. Overall, no consensus on a single, standardized definition was available.

Conclusions: This systematic review shows the absence of a standardized definition and assessment of discomfort in febrile children. The findings of the present analysis might be the basis for building a consensus and developing a new tool to evaluate discomfort.

What is known: • Discomfort is currently considered the main criterion to guide antipyretic administration in children with fever. • Despite this clear-cut recommendation, it has been questioned whether a commonly accepted understanding and assessment of this condition exists.

What is new: • This systematic review identifies a significant heterogeneity in definitions and assessment of discomfort in children with fever. • Both subjective parameters and observable modifications in physiological parameters should be included in a new and shared characterization of discomfort.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿科文献中发热相关不适的定义和评估:系统综述。
指南主张,发热的对症治疗应优先考虑减轻患儿的不适感。我们对儿科科学文献中发热儿童不适的定义和评估进行了调查。我们按照 PRISMA 2020 指南进行了系统性综述,并在 Prospero 数据库(CRD42023471590)中进行了预注册。检索的数据库包括 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane。涉及发热儿童不适症状的研究均符合条件。在初步确定的 794 篇文章中,有 27 篇原创研究和 7 篇指南特别使用了 "不适 "一词。只有 14 篇原创文章提供了不适感的定义,这表明存在很大的异质性,而且没有明确的定义。不适感通常是主观评估的,主要是通过家长或自我报告,只有两项研究使用了评分系统进行评估。对不适的定义也大相径庭,通常使用的术语包括哭泣、烦躁、颤抖和发冷、疼痛和痛苦、起鸡皮疙瘩,以及对可观察到的变化(如面部变化)的评估。总体而言,目前还没有就单一的标准化定义达成共识:本系统综述表明,发热儿童的不适感缺乏标准化的定义和评估。本分析报告的结论可作为建立共识和开发评估不适感的新工具的基础:- 目前,不适感被认为是指导发热儿童退热用药的主要标准。- 尽管有这一明确的建议,但人们一直在质疑对这一状况是否存在普遍接受的理解和评估:- 本系统综述发现,对发热儿童不适症状的定义和评估存在很大差异。- 主观参数和可观察到的生理参数变化都应纳入新的、共同的不适特征描述中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
2.80%
发文量
367
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Pediatrics (EJPE) is a leading peer-reviewed medical journal which covers the entire field of pediatrics. The editors encourage authors to submit original articles, reviews, short communications, and correspondence on all relevant themes and topics. EJPE is particularly committed to the publication of articles on important new clinical research that will have an immediate impact on clinical pediatric practice. The editorial office very much welcomes ideas for publications, whether individual articles or article series, that fit this goal and is always willing to address inquiries from authors regarding potential submissions. Invited review articles on clinical pediatrics that provide comprehensive coverage of a subject of importance are also regularly commissioned. The short publication time reflects both the commitment of the editors and publishers and their passion for new developments in the field of pediatrics. EJPE is active on social media (@EurJPediatrics) and we invite you to participate. EJPE is the official journal of the European Academy of Paediatrics (EAP) and publishes guidelines and statements in cooperation with the EAP.
期刊最新文献
On ultrasonography for normative values of diaphragmatic and peripheral muscle function in the newborn. Neonatal critical care of the future: increasing complexity and more ethical issues. Neurological sequelae after childhood bacterial meningitis. On diaphragmatic and peripheral muscle ultrasonography in the newborn. Postpandemic fluctuations of regional respiratory syncytial virus hospitalization epidemiology: potential impact on an immunization program in Switzerland.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1