Oliveira 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT (randomized cross‐over trial). 2 arms.
Participants	Number of children: 18 control, 22 treatment Sex of children: 16 M, 24 F Age range of children: 6 ‐ 12 years Mean age of children: 8.72 ± 1.80 years Needle procedure: venepuncture or arterial puncture Diagnosis: onco‐hematology (42.5%), endocrinology (15%), pulmonology (15%), nephrology (10%), rheumatology (7.5%), gastroenterology (2.5%), cardiology (2.5%), and immunology (2.5%) Inclusion criteria: children aged 6 – 12 years, sufficient language skills to communicate, in a hospital setting with different diagnoses, prescribed venipuncture or arterial puncture based on clinical demand, hospitalized for at least 1 day and had a time interval of not more than 7 days between the puncture procedures Exclusion criteria: children with neurological impairments or communication problems and children under sedation Setting: pediatric inpatient units in hospital in Brazil
Interventions	1. Audiovisual distraction: Children watched short films on a portable DVD player before and throughout the procedure. A researcher directed the child's attention to the video by making comments about the scenes and characters. The parents of the children were present during the intervention, but they were instructed not to interfere with the procedure. 2. Usual care: Procedure conducted as in routine hospital care. At the time of the study, no non‐pharmacological or pharmacological protocols were adopted by the hospital in routine puncture procedures.
Outcomes	Pain measure: Child self‐report: VAS Child self‐report: FPS‐R Adverse events: none mentioned
Notes	We included only outcomes from Time 1, prior to the cross‐over. Study dates: March to November 2013 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: "randomizer.org" (p. 179)
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	Participants 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)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgment of 'low' or 'high' risk
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free of other bias that would affect outcomes.