Dataset Information

Virtual Reality Applications in Chronic Pain Management: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Virtual reality (VR) is a computer technology that immerses a user in a completely different reality. The application of VR in acute pain settings is well established. However, in chronic pain, the applications and outcome parameters influenced by VR are less clear.

Objective

This review aimed to systematically identify all outcome parameters that are reported in relation to VR in patients with chronic pain.

Methods

A total of 4 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were searched for relevant studies. Multilevel random-effect meta-analyses were performed, whereby the standardized mean difference was chosen as the effect size to denote the difference between measurements before and after a VR intervention.

Results

The initial database search identified 1430 studies, of which 41 (2.87%) were eventually included in the systematic review. Evidence has been found for the effects of VR on pain, functioning, mobility, functional capacity, psychological outcomes, quality of life, neuropsychological outcomes, and physical sensations. The overall effect size (a total of 194 effect sizes from 25 studies) based on a three level meta-analysis was estimated at 1.22 (95% CI 0.55-1.89; z=3.56; P<.001), in favor of improvements after a VR intervention. When categorizing effect sizes, the overall effect sizes were reported as follows: 1.60 (95% CI 0.83-2.36; z=4.09; P<.001) for the effect of VR on pain (n=31), 1.40 (95% CI 0.13-2.67; z=2.17; P=.03) for functioning (n=60), 0.49 (95% CI -0.71 to 1.68; z=0.80; P=.42) for mobility (n=24), and 0.34 (95% CI -1.52 to 2.20; z=0.36; P=.72) for functional capacity (n=21).

Conclusions

This systematic review revealed a broad range of outcome variables influenced by an intervention of VR technology, with statistically significant pain relief and improvements in functioning. These findings indicate that VR not only has applications in acute pain management but also in chronic pain settings, whereby VR might be able to become a promising first-line intervention as complementary therapy for patients with chronic pain.

Trial registration

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021227016; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=227016.

SUBMITTER: Goudman L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9131143 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcutely painful procedures are commonplace. Current approaches to pain most often involve pharmacotherapy, however, there is interest in virtual reality (VR) as a non-pharmacological alternative. A methodologically rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis is lacking.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, NIHR Centre for Review and Dissemination, Proquest, the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 5 November 2017. Included studies were randomised with an experimental trial design, included a non-VR control group and examined the efficacy of VR with regards to an acutely painful clinical intervention. Bias was assessed along Cochrane guidelines, with performance bias not assessed due to the non-blindable nature of VR. We extracted summary data for maximal pain score and used standard mean difference DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis (RevMan 5.3). This review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42017058204).FindingsOf the 12,450 studies identified, 20 studies were eligible for the systematic review. No trials reported in sufficient detail to judge their risk of bias, and 10 studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain. 16 studies (9 randomised controlled trials, 7 crossover studies) examining 656 individuals were included in quantitative synthesis. Pain scales were heterogenous, but mostly employed 100-point scales. Across all trials, meta-analysis was suggestive of a -0.49 (95%CI -0.83 to -0.41, p = 0.006) standardised mean difference reduction in pain score with VR. However there was a high degree of statistical heterogeneity (χ2 p<0.001, I2 81%, 95%CI for I2 70-88%), driven by randomised studies, with substantial clinical heterogeneity.ConclusionThese data suggest that VR may have a role in acutely painful procedures, however included studies were clinically and statistically heterogenous. Further research is required to validate findings, establish cost efficacy and optimal clinical settings for usage. Future trials should report in accordance with established guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundVirtual reality (VR) in different immersive conditions has been increasingly used as a nonpharmacological method for managing chronic musculoskeletal pain.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the effectiveness of VR-assisted active training versus conventional exercise or physiotherapy in chronic musculoskeletal pain and to analyze the effects of immersive versus nonimmersive VR on pain outcomes.MethodsThis systematic review of randomized control trials (RCTs) searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from inception to June 9, 2024. RCTs comparing adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain receiving VR-assisted training were included. The primary outcome was pain intensity; secondary outcomes included functional disability and kinesiophobia. Available data were pooled in a meta-analysis. Studies were graded using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool version 2.ResultsIn total, 28 RCTs including 1114 participants with some concerns for a high risk of bias were identified, and 25 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. In low back pain, short-term outcomes measured post intervention showed that nonimmersive VR is effective in reducing pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.79, 95% CI -2.72 to -0.87; P<.001), improving disability (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.16; P=.002), and kinesiophobia (SMD -2.94, 95% CI -5.20 to -0.68; P=.01). Intermediate-term outcomes measured at 6 months also showed that nonimmersive VR is effective in reducing pain (SMD -8.15, 95% CI -15.29 to -1.01; P=.03), and kinesiophobia (SMD -4.28, 95% CI -8.12 to -0.44; P=.03) compared to conventional active training. For neck pain, immersive VR reduced pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.08; P=.02) but not disability and kinesiophobia in the short term. No statistical significances were detected for knee pain or other pain regions at all time points. In addition, 2 (8%) studies had a high risk of bias.ConclusionsBoth nonimmersive and immersive VR-assisted active training is effective in reducing back and neck pain symptoms. Our study findings suggest that VR is effective in alleviating chronic musculoskeletal pain.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022302912; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=302912.

Project description:BackgroundEffective pain control is crucial to optimise the success of medical procedures. Immersive virtual reality (VR) technology could offer an effective non-invasive, non-pharmacological option to distract patients and reduce their experience of pain. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Immersive virtual reality (VR) technology in reducing patient's pain perception during various medical procedures by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and SIGLE until December 2022 for all randomised clinical trials (RCT) evaluating any type of VR in patients undergoing any medical procedure. We conducted a random effect meta-analysis summarising standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We evaluated heterogeneity using I 2 and explored it using subgroup and meta-regression analyses.ResultsIn total, we included 92 RCTs (n = 7133 participants). There was a significant reduction in pain scores with VR across all medical procedures (n = 83, SMD - 0.78, 95% CI - 1.00 to - 0.57, I 2 = 93%, p = < 0.01). Subgroup analysis showed varied reduction in pain scores across trial designs [crossover (n = 13, SMD - 0.86, 95% CI - 1.23 to - 0.49, I 2 = 72%, p = < 0.01) vs parallel RCTs (n = 70, SMD - 0.77, 95% CI - 1.01 to - 0.52, I 2 = 90%, p = < 0.01)]; participant age groups [paediatric (n = 43, SMD - 0.91, 95% CI - 1.26 to - 0.56, I 2 = 87%, p = < 0.01) vs adults (n = 40, SMD - 0.66, 95% CI - 0.94 to - 0.39, I 2 = 89%, p = < 0.01)] or procedures [venepuncture (n = 32, SMD - 0.99, 95% CI - 1.52 to - 0.46, I 2 = 90%, p = < 0.01) vs childbirth (n = 7, SMD - 0.99, 95% CI - 1.59 to - 0.38, I 2 = 88%, p = < 0.01) vs minimally invasive medical procedures (n = 25, SMD - 0.51, 95% CI - 0.79 to - 0.23, I 2 = 85%, p = < 0.01) vs dressing changes in burn patients (n = 19, SMD - 0.8, 95% CI - 1.16 to - 0.45, I 2 = 87%, p = < 0.01)]. We explored heterogeneity using meta-regression which showed no significant impact of different covariates including crossover trials (p = 0.53), minimally invasive procedures (p = 0.37), and among paediatric participants (p = 0.27). Cumulative meta-analysis showed no change in overall effect estimates with the additional RCTs since 2018.ConclusionsImmersive VR technology offers effective pain control across various medical procedures, albeit statistical heterogeneity. Further research is needed to inform the safe adoption of this technology across different medical disciplines.

Project description:BackgroundNeck pain is a prevalent condition that causes an enormous health care burden due to the lack of efficient therapies. As a promising technology, virtual reality (VR) has shown advantages in orthopedic rehabilitation. However, there is no meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of VR in neck pain management.ObjectiveThis study aims to review original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of VR for neck pain and to provide evidence for the clinical application of a new alternative approach for pain management.MethodsA total of 9 electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant articles published from inception to October 2022. RCTs in English or Chinese that investigated VR therapy for participants with neck pain were included. The methodological quality and the evidence level were assessed using the Cochrane Back and Neck Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guideline, respectively.ResultsA total of 8 studies with 382 participants were included for the final analysis. For the pain intensity, the overall pooled effect size was 0.51, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.51 (95% CI -0.91 to -0.11; GRADE: moderate), favoring VR therapy compared with controls. Subgroups analyses revealed that significant differences in pain intensity were found in the multimodal intervention (VR in combination with other therapies) than in other interventions (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.13; GRADE: moderate), and better analgesic effects were also observed in patients with chronic neck pain receiving VR intervention (SMD -0.70, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.32; GRADE: moderate) and patients treated in the clinic or research unit (SMD -0.52, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; GRADE: moderate) than controls. Regarding other health outcomes, the VR experienced less disability, lower kinesiophobia, and greater kinematic function (cervical range of motion, mean and peak velocity). Nevertheless, the follow-up effects of VR therapy on pain intensity and disability were not found.ConclusionsExisting moderate evidence support VR as a beneficial nonpharmacological approach to improve pain intensity in patients with neck pain, with advantages to multimodal intervention, people with chronic neck pain, and clinic or research unit-based VR therapy. However, the limited quantity and high heterogeneity of the articles limit our findings.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020188635; https://tinyurl.com/2839jh8w.

Project description:BackgroundVirtual reality (VR) is used as a distraction measure during painful clinical procedures associated with the use of needles. These procedures include vaccinations, blood draws, or the administration of medications, which can cause children to feel increased levels of pain and fear.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to collect and analyze the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of VR as a tool to distract children from pain and fear during needle procedures as compared to that of standard techniques.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs with participants younger than 21 years who underwent needle procedures in which the main distraction measure used was VR and where the main outcome measure was pain. The databases searched included the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane libraries. In this systematic review, the studies were analyzed by applying the Critical Appraisal Skills Program guide in Spanish and the Jadad scale. In the meta-analysis, the effect size of the studies was analyzed based on the results for pain and fear in children.ResultsFrom 665 unique search results, 21 studies were included in this systematic review, most of which reported low methodological quality. The study sample cohorts ranged from a minimum of 15 participants to a maximum of 220 participants. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. The global effect of using VR as a distraction measure was a significant reduction in pain (inverse variance [IV] -2.37, 95% CI -3.20 to -1.54; Z=5.58; P<.001) and fear (IV -1.26, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.63; Z=3.92; P<.001) in children in the experimental groups.ConclusionsThe quality of the studies was mostly low. The main limitations were the impossibility of blinding the participants and health care personnel to the VR intervention. Nonetheless, the use of VR as a distraction measure was effective in reducing pain and fear in children during procedures involving needles.