Summary of findings for the main comparison. Audiovisual distraction compared to conventional treatment for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment.
| Audiovisual distraction compared to conventional treatment for increasing acceptance of LA in children and adolescents having dental treatment | ||||||
| Patient or population: children and adolescents having dental treatment Setting: dental clinic Intervention: audiovisual distraction Comparison: conventional treatment | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | What this means | |
| Risk with conventional treatment | Risk with audiovisual distraction | |||||
| Acceptance of LA | Included studies did not report on this outcome | |||||
| Completion of dental treatment | Included studies did not report on this outcome | |||||
| Successful LA/painless treatment | Included studies did not report on this outcome | |||||
| Self‐ or observational assessment of intraoperative distress/pain/acceptance of treatment during provision of LA: pain‐related behaviour during LA (children who exhibited a negative versus positive behaviour; Frankl Behaviour Rating Scale (FBRS)) |
Study population | RR 0.13 (0.03 to 0.50) | 60 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWa | Evidence is uncertain regarding the effect of audiovisual distraction on negative behaviour | |
| 533 per 1000 | 69 per 1000 (16 to 267) | |||||
| Patient satisfaction: measured by questionnaires | Included studies did not report on this outcome | |||||
| Adverse effects | Included studies did not report on this outcome | |||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI) CI: confidence interval; LA: local anaesthetic; MD: mean difference; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio; VR: virtual reality | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
aCertainty of the evidence downgraded by 1 level for high risk of bias, and 2 levels for very serious imprecision (single study with a small sample size).