Miguez‐Navarro 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT. 2 arms.
Participants	Number of children: 70 control, 70 treatment Sex of children: 81 M, 59 F Age range of children: 3 ‐ 11 years Mean age range of children: 6.82 years Needle procedure: venipuncture Diagnosis of child: none reported Inclusion criteria: 3 ‐ 11 years, required venipuncture Exclusion criteria: psychomotor retardation, chronic pathologies, any consciousness disorder, classified as Priority 1 or 2 (in a system of 5 levels of triage), parents or guardians did not sign the informed consent Setting: emergency department in Madrid, Spain
Interventions	1.Video distraction: From the beginning of the procedure, children were shown short videos of cartoons frequently watched by Spanish children using a portable DVD player. The videos were chosen by each child. Parents were not allowed in the procedure room. 2. Control: Standard venipuncture procedures were followed.
Outcomes	Pain measures: Child self‐report (3 ‐ 7 year olds): Wong Baker FACES scale Child self‐report (8 ‐ 11 year olds): Numerical rating scale (0 ‐ 10) Distress measure: Child self‐report: Groninger Distress Scale Physiological measure: Heart rate: beats per minute Adverse events: none mentioned
Notes	Study dates: July to December 2011. Funding: none stated Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "generated by Research Randomizer" (p. 2)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgment of 'low' or 'high' risk.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Study participants and personnel were not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding of outcome assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	One or more outcomes of interest are reported incompletely (i.e. heart rate)
Other bias	High risk	Multiple potential sources of bias related to study design (e.g. parents not allowed in intervention group only)