Department of Occupational Therapy, Tufts University, Medford MA.
John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, IL.
Clin J Pain. 2022 Jun 1;38(6):424-441. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001029.
Previous reviews have reported virtual reality (VR) to be an effective method to treat pain. This scoping review examines the state of the science for VR and pain both generally and by pain type (acute and chronic) related to types of mechanisms, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse events (AEs). We searched online databases PubMed, Web of Science, PsychInfo, and CINAHL from 2010 to 2020 and included studies from peer reviewed journals that examined people with pain, (excluding pain-free participants) with a primary outcome measuring pain. We assessed studies for risk of bias using PEDro criteria. We described data through counts and percentages. Significant results were determined through P-values. We found 70 studies representing 4105 people; 46 acute pain studies (65.7%), 22 chronic pain studies (31.4%), and 2 (2.9%) "both." The most common VR mechanism was distraction (78.6%) then embodiment (17.1%). However, distraction was the mechanism for 97.8% acute pain studies while embodiment was more common for chronic pain (54.5%). Dosage of VR was inconsistently reported and varied considerably. VR treatment groups showed significant improvements in pain, particularly for intensity of pain (72.1%) and quality of pain (75.0%). Few studies examined AEs. Limitations of this review include only examining last 10 years of articles and that many studies were missing data. VR appears to be an effective intervention to address both acute and chronic pain. Research evaluating VR mechanisms, dosage, and AEs is warranted, as is further work in under-served populations (children for chronic pain and older adults) as the current evidence is largely limited to adult populations with pain.
先前的综述报告称,虚拟现实(VR)是治疗疼痛的一种有效方法。本范围综述考察了 VR 和疼痛的科学现状,包括一般情况以及与各种机制、剂量、有效性和不良事件(AEs)相关的疼痛类型(急性和慢性)。我们从 2010 年到 2020 年在在线数据库 PubMed、Web of Science、PsychInfo 和 CINAHL 中进行了搜索,并纳入了检查疼痛人群(不包括无痛参与者)的同行评审期刊研究,主要结果为疼痛测量。我们使用 PEDro 标准评估研究的偏倚风险。我们通过计数和百分比来描述数据。通过 P 值确定显著结果。我们发现了 70 项研究,代表了 4105 人;46 项急性疼痛研究(65.7%),22 项慢性疼痛研究(31.4%),2 项“两者兼有”(2.9%)。最常见的 VR 机制是分散注意力(78.6%),其次是体现(17.1%)。然而,分散注意力是 97.8%的急性疼痛研究的机制,而体现则更常见于慢性疼痛(54.5%)。VR 的剂量报告不一致且差异很大。VR 治疗组的疼痛明显改善,尤其是疼痛强度(72.1%)和疼痛质量(75.0%)。很少有研究检查 AEs。本综述的局限性包括仅检查过去 10 年的文章,并且许多研究数据缺失。VR 似乎是一种有效的干预措施,可以解决急性和慢性疼痛。有必要评估 VR 机制、剂量和 AEs 的研究,以及在服务不足的人群(慢性疼痛的儿童和老年人)中进一步开展工作,因为目前的证据主要限于有疼痛的成年人群。