SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2026
Effectiveness of parental presence during induction of anaesthesia in managing perioperative anxiety in children: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPreoperative anxiety in children is common and may negatively affect anesthetic management and postoperative recovery. Parental Presence during Induction of Anesthesia (PPIA) is widely used as a non-pharmacological strategy, but its effectiveness remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effect of PPIA on perioperative anxiety in children.
methodsRandomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing PPIA with no parental presence or alternative interventions for perioperative anxiety in children undergoing elective procedures under general anesthesia were systematically reviewed. Five electronic databases were searched from inception to June 30, 2025. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk-of-Bias tool and GRADE framework. Data were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis, with effect sizes reported as Weighted Mean Differences (WMDs) or Standardized Mean Differences (SMDs). The primary outcome was perioperative anxiety assessed at follow-up time points, and the secondary outcome was the change in perioperative anxiety from baseline to each follow-up time point.
resultsA total of 24 studies were included, evaluating four intervention comparisons: PPIA versus no parental presence, PPIA versus sedative premedication, PPIA combined with sedative premedication versus sedative premedication alone, and PPIA versus other non-pharmacological interventions. Compared with no parental presence, PPIA was associated with reductions in children’s anxiety and heart rate from baseline to induction (SMD= ˗1.13, P = 0.022; WMD= ˗8.74, P = 0.004). In contrast, PPIA alone was less effective than midazolam in reducing anxiety at induction and from baseline to induction (SMD = 1.06, P = 0.022; SMD = 2.15, P = 0.004), and combining PPIA with midazolam offered no additional benefit over midazolam alone at induction (SMD: ˗0.40, P = 0.402). One study suggested that video distraction may be more effective than PPIA. The certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate, and only five studies were rated as high quality.
conclusionPPIA modestly reduces perioperative anxiety and heart rate in children compared with no parental presence but is less effective than midazolam and provides no additional benefit when combined with it. Therefore, high-quality studies are needed to clarify the clinical relevance of PPIA and to optimize its implementation in pediatric anesthesia. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024596457
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.