Basic HTML Version
using intention to treat analysis and loss
monitoring, and compliance with treatment.
Clinical Comments
A clinician with relevant training and experience
both hypnosis and cancer patients
asked to comment on each study, focusing
on the appropriateness of intervention
Table 1
Excluded studies
Study type Authors Title / Description reason for exclusion
Zeltzer et al.46 1991 RCT A randomized, controlled study of behavioral
intervention for chemotherapy distress
in children with cancer
Chemotherapy
No LP / BMA process
risk assessment
but not pain
Hilgard
and LeBaron47 1982
UCT patients aged 6 to 19 are submitted with BMAs
hypnosis. Hypnotic state, but not
nonhypnotizable patients reported significant
self-reported reductions in pain relief.
Less hypnotic patients
obtain relief of symptoms were reported but
reduce stress. In addition, women
found to report more pain than men.
No control group
Kellerman et al.48 1983 UCT Sixteen adolescent patients with cancer
undergoing
a variety of interventional procedures has been
hypnosis. Patients achieved significant reductions
measures of pain and discomfort after hypnosis
education. Anticipatory anxiety was observed
to increase before the hypnotic treatment.
Two patients rejected hypnosis.
No control group
Vol. No. 31 January 1 2006 Interventions hypnosis for pediatric cancer patients
73
clinical significance, and practical issues. A semistructured
the form of a question developed
specifically for this. Summaries of these comments
given in Table 2.
Results
A systematic review, 30 published seven
randomized controlled trials, 15,17,33 - 37 and