Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
BMC Med. 2024 Feb 14;22(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03266-6.
Effective 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.
We 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 and explored it using subgroup and meta-regression analyses.
In 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 = 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 = 72%, p = < 0.01) vs parallel RCTs (n = 70, SMD - 0.77, 95% CI - 1.01 to - 0.52, I = 90%, p = < 0.01)]; participant age groups [paediatric (n = 43, SMD - 0.91, 95% CI - 1.26 to - 0.56, I = 87%, p = < 0.01) vs adults (n = 40, SMD - 0.66, 95% CI - 0.94 to - 0.39, I = 89%, p = < 0.01)] or procedures [venepuncture (n = 32, SMD - 0.99, 95% CI - 1.52 to - 0.46, I = 90%, p = < 0.01) vs childbirth (n = 7, SMD - 0.99, 95% CI - 1.59 to - 0.38, I = 88%, p = < 0.01) vs minimally invasive medical procedures (n = 25, SMD - 0.51, 95% CI - 0.79 to - 0.23, I = 85%, p = < 0.01) vs dressing changes in burn patients (n = 19, SMD - 0.8, 95% CI - 1.16 to - 0.45, I = 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.
Immersive 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.
有效控制疼痛对于优化医疗程序的成功至关重要。沉浸式虚拟现实(VR)技术可能提供一种有效的非侵入性、非药物选择,可以分散患者的注意力并减轻他们的疼痛体验。我们旨在通过系统评价和荟萃分析评估沉浸式 VR 技术在各种医疗程序中降低患者疼痛感知的效果。
我们搜索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CENTRAL、CINAHL 和 SIGLE,以获取所有评估任何类型 VR 在接受任何医疗程序的患者中的随机临床试验(RCT),截至 2022 年 12 月。我们进行了随机效应荟萃分析,总结了标准均数差值(SMD)及其 95%置信区间(CI)。我们使用 I ²评估了异质性,并使用亚组和荟萃回归分析进行了探索。
我们共纳入了 92 项 RCT(n=7133 名参与者)。所有医疗程序的疼痛评分均有显著降低(n=83,SMD=-0.78,95%CI-1.00 至-0.57,I ²=93%,p<0.01)。亚组分析显示,试验设计不同时疼痛评分的降低程度也不同[交叉(n=13,SMD=-0.86,95%CI-1.23 至-0.49,I ²=72%,p<0.01)与平行 RCT(n=70,SMD=-0.77,95%CI-1.01 至-0.52,I ²=90%,p<0.01)];参与者年龄组[儿科(n=43,SMD=-0.91,95%CI-1.26 至-0.56,I ²=87%,p<0.01)与成人(n=40,SMD=-0.66,95%CI-0.94 至-0.39,I ²=89%,p<0.01)]或程序[静脉穿刺(n=32,SMD=-0.99,95%CI-1.52 至-0.46,I ²=90%,p<0.01)与分娩(n=7,SMD=-0.99,95%CI-1.59 至-0.38,I ²=88%,p<0.01)与微创手术(n=25,SMD=-0.51,95%CI-0.79 至-0.23,I ²=85%,p<0.01)与烧伤患者换药(n=19,SMD=-0.8,95%CI-1.16 至-0.45,I ²=87%,p<0.01)]。我们使用荟萃回归分析来探索异质性,结果显示,不同的协变量(交叉试验(p=0.53)、微创手术(p=0.37)和儿科参与者(p=0.27))没有显著影响。累积荟萃分析显示,自 2018 年以来,随着更多 RCT 的纳入,总体效应估计值没有变化。
沉浸式 VR 技术在各种医疗程序中提供了有效的疼痛控制,尽管存在统计学上的异质性。需要进一步的研究来为这一技术在不同医学领域的安全应用提供信息。