Paediatric hospitalisation, encompassing the period from admission to discharge, often involves feelings of pain, fear and anxiety, primarily due to clinical diagnoses and, more significantly, discomfort and stress-inducing procedures. Numerous methodologies and interventions have been investigated and implemented to alleviate these phenomena during paediatric hospitalisation. Virtual reality (VR), for example, has demonstrated efficacy in pain relief for hospitalised children in recent studies. This systematic review, therefore, aims to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of VR in alleviating pain, fear and anxiety in hospitalised children undergoing painful procedures.

This systematic review and meta-analysis will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols guidelines. A systematic search will be conducted in March and April 2025 across the following databases, with no restrictions on language or publication year: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulated Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies will include randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials involving children (aged 2–10 years) and adolescents (aged 10–18 years) who received VR interventions during painful procedures. Data will be managed and analysed using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.2.3). In cases of significant heterogeneity (I² > 50%), a random-effects model will be employed to combine studies and calculate the OR with a 95% CI. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.

This study will solely review published data; thus, ethical approval is not required. This systematic review is expected to provide subsidies, evidence and insights into the use of VR. It is also anticipated that the results will directly impact the improvement of care for these patients and the qualification of professional care.

CRD42024568297.

This review aims to map oral health plans, programmes and policies worldwide in countries with universal health coverage.

This protocol describes a scoping review that will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Review checklist, guided by the PCC framework: Population—countries with universal health coverage (78 globally recognised); Concept—oral health plans, programmes and policies; Context—integration into health systems. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Health System Evidence and Epistemonikos, with no restrictions on date, language or study type. Grey literature will be accessed through Google Scholar, OpenThesis and the Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. Official documents from ministries of health and international bodies, including the WHO and the International Monetary Fund, will also be reviewed. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts; a third will resolve disagreements. Eligible records will undergo full-text review. Data will be extracted into predefined categories reflecting health system components: population, structure, services, governance and oral health indicators. Results will be presented using tables, charts and figures to illustrate strategies and innovations.

This review does not involve primary data collection and does not require ethical approval. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and presentations at academic conferences and scientific events.

Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/RCP8N).

Acute pain in the postoperative period of cardiac surgery is mostly treated with opioid analgesics. However, with the risk of adverse reactions and complications, strategies which do not involve opioid analgesics can be considered, such as aromatherapy. This systematic review aims to analyse the effectiveness of aromatherapy in relieving pain in post-cardiac surgery patients.

Two researchers will independently and simultaneously conduct searches and select studies from the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane (Library) and clinical trial registries (clinicaltrials.com), with no language or publication date restrictions. Randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials on the use of aromatherapy for pain relief in postcardiac surgery patients will be included. Then, two researchers will independently examine the studies based on inclusion criteria, extract data from the included studies and assess the risk of bias using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool from Cochrane. Data will be synthesised using Review Manager software. The strength of the evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The literature search, study selection, review and meta-analysis stages will be conducted from early October 2025 to April 2026.

This study is based on secondary data, and therefore ethical approval from a research ethics committee was not required. The results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

CRD42024568532.

Pain is one of the most bothersome symptoms that affects patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) but is often inadequately treated. Inadequate pain control in the inpatient setting not only impacts patients’ experience but increases opioid use and hospital length of stay. Opioids are often considered first-line treatment for severe pain but are associated with significant morbidity and mortality in IBD. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are a non-opioid analgesic option, but concerns regarding their contribution to IBD flares have limited their use. Brain-gut behavioural therapies (BGBT), such as cognitive behavioural therapy, meditation and gut-directed hypnotherapy, are effective for pain management and have a role in the treatment of IBD symptoms. However, the use of BGBT in IBD is challenging, given limited access to behavioural health specialists, especially in the inpatient setting. Virtual reality (VR)-directed BGBT programmes can bridge this gap and enhance pain treatment for inpatients with IBD. Therefore, in this study, we aim to establish feasibility and acceptability for a VR-directed BGBT inpatient programme for patients with IBD.

We will recruit 40 patients with IBD who are hospitalised at Michigan Medicine and who endorse IBD-related pain. We will assess patient-reported outcomes (pain rating, IBD-specific symptoms, perceived stress, mood) before and after treatment, cumulative inpatient analgesic requirements and hospital length of stay. Our primary objective will be to establish intervention feasibility defined by the frequency and percentage of enrolled participants that use the VR-directed BGBT inpatient intervention in any capacity. Our secondary objective will be to evaluate intervention acceptability by conducting semistructured interviews with study participants. We will also explore the preliminary effectiveness of VR-directed BGBT on patient-reported outcomes and healthcare utilisation as compared with historic controls.

The study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Michigan Medical School on 10 October 2023 (HUM00240999). All human subjects will be required to sign an informed consent document prior to study participation. Study findings will be reported through peer-reviewed publication.

NCT06188793.

Despite expert recommendations to prioritise non-invasive and patient-centred approaches for behavioural crisis management, physical restraints are commonly used in the emergency department (ED). Patients describe the restraint process as coercive and dehumanising. The use of peer support workers, who are individuals with lived experience of mental illness and behavioural conditions, has shown positive patient outcomes when assisting individuals experiencing behavioural crises. However, there is limited evidence of the implementation of such an approach in the ED setting. The goal of this study is to evaluate if the implementation of a Peer support enhanced Agitation Crisis response Team (PACT) for behavioural crisis management in the ED is more effective than usual care to reduce restraint use and improve outcomes among patients presenting to the ED with behavioural crises.

We will first conduct a stakeholder-informed needs assessment to codesign the protocol and then train staff and peers in PACT intervention readiness. Next, a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial will be conducted over 3 years at five ED sites across a healthcare system in the Northeast USA. The PACT intervention will integrate peer delivery of trauma-informed care within a structured, interprofessional, team-based response protocol for behavioural crisis management. The primary outcome is the rate of physical restraint and/or sedation use. The secondary outcome is the level of patient agitation during the ED visit. Analyses of primary and secondary outcomes will be conducted using generalised linear mixed models.

This protocol has been approved by the Yale University Human Investigation Committee (protocol number 2000037554). The study is deemed minimal risk and has been granted a waiver of consent for trial participants. However, verbal consent will be obtained for a subset of patients receiving follow-up data collection. Results will be disseminated through publications in open-access, peer-reviewed journals, via scientific presentations, or through direct mail notifications.

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT06556069.

Sepsis is a common condition with significant morbidity, mortality and annual costs of care in the billions of dollars. Despite innumerable studies on the causes of, and therapies for, sepsis, the mortality rate has not changed substantially in the last 20 years. Treatments remain generic, with current guidelines recommending the same approach for all patients, regardless of the litany of differences that exist at baseline. Moreover, the blanket administration of 30 cc/kg of intravenous fluid (IVF) to all patients is recognised as being directly harmful to some. Patient-level heterogeneity in prior sepsis trials is recognised as a substantial contributor to all these problems, yet no prior investigation has attempted to identify volume-informed septic phenotypes, a necessary first step towards precision care.

Predicated on prior studies demonstrating detectability of organ-level congestion, we hypothesise that central venous hypertension (1) is deleterious to the function of the lungs, liver, kidneys and vascular endothelium; (2) is worsened by cardiac dysfunction and IVF administration; and (3) contributes to adverse organ-specific and overall outcomes. Beginning in the emergency department, cardiac function will be assessed with echocardiography while congestion in the lungs and kidneys will be assessed using previously validated sonographic markers of congestion. Biomarkers for each organ will be collected concurrently, thereby increasing the fidelity of our phenotypic profiles by pairing indicators of macroscopic and microscopic stress and dysfunction. Data will also be collected at 24 hours and 7 days (or discharge, whichever comes first) after presentation. Classical and machine learning approaches will be used to analyse our large data stream and develop a rule-based system to identify distinct subpopulations of patients with sepsis who have greater risk/likelihood of both organ-specific and overall adverse outcomes.

This project has been approved by the Wayne State University Institutional Review Board, with patient enrolment beginning in April 2024. Findings will be reported and disseminated via conference presentations and open-access publications.

The current diagnostic pathway for patients with a suspected inherited bleeding disorder is long, costly, resource intensive, emotionally draining for patients and often futile, as half of patients will remain without a diagnosis and be labelled ‘bleeding disorder of unknown cause’. Advances in understanding the genetic basis of the inherited bleeding disorders, coupled with both increasing infrastructure for genetic/genomic testing and decreasing costs, have increased the feasibility of introducing genomic testing into the clinical diagnostic pathway as a potential solution to improve the care of these patients. Yet, there remain evidence gaps on the optimal integration of genomic analysis into the diagnostic pathway.

Using a multicentre randomised-controlled trial design, we will evaluate an early genomic testing strategy for the diagnosis of newly referred patients with a suspected inherited bleeding disorder. Eligible participants will be randomised to early genomic testing diagnostic pathway (intervention) or standard diagnostic pathway (control) and will be followed for a 12-month period. Patients in the control group who remain undiagnosed at study end will be offered identical early genomic testing to ensure equitable access to the intervention. The study will follow a parallel fixed design with waitlist control group and a 1:1 allocation ratio. The study will be conducted at three tertiary care centres in Ontario, Canada, with a target sample size of 212 participants. Clinical utility will be evaluated via the primary outcome of diagnostic yield, as well as the secondary outcome of time to diagnosis. Additional secondary outcomes will allow for assessment of patient impact via health-related quality of life and patient burden measures, as well as evaluation of economic impact through a cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis.

This investigator-initiated study was approved by the Queen’s University Health Sciences and Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board through Clinical Trials Ontario (CTO-4909). Participant informed consent/assent is required. Findings will be disseminated through academic publications.

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06736158.