Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35807198›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Virtual Reality Hypnosis in the Electrophysiology Lab: When Human Treatments Are Better than Virtual Ones.

Iklo Coulibaly, Laura Sofia Cardelli, Claire Duflos, Lionel Moulis, Bara Mandoorah, Jean Nicoleau, Leslie Placide, François Massin, Jean-Luc Pasquié, Mathieu Granier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Extended reality in cardiovascular care: a systematic review.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025
    Review
  4. Sensory stimulations potentializing digital therapeutics pain control.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Iklo CoulibalyCardiology Department, CHU Montpellier, 34090 Montpellier, France.
Laura Sofia CardelliCardiology Department, Ospedale Maggiore, 40133 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4454-1864
Claire DuflosClinical Research and Epidemiology Unit, CHU Montpellier, 34090 Montpellier, France.
Lionel MoulisClinical Research and Epidemiology Unit, CHU Montpellier, 34090 Montpellier, France.
Bara MandoorahCardiology Department, CHU Montpellier, 34090 Montpellier, France.
Jean NicoleauCardiology Department, CHU Montpellier, 34090 Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5526-0550
Leslie PlacideCardiology Department, CHU Montpellier, 34090 Montpellier, France.
François MassinCardiology Department, CHU Montpellier, 34090 Montpellier, France.
Jean-Luc PasquiéCardiology Department, CHU Montpellier, 34090 Montpellier, France.
Mathieu GranierCardiology Department, CHU Montpellier, 34090 Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0871-4126
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier · FRUniversité de Montpellier · FRFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: Virtual reality hypnosis (VRH) has been used successfully in various clinical settings to decrease anxiety and the sensation of pain. We aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of VRH in patients undergoing electrophysiology and pacing procedures under conscious sedation. Methods: During a two-month period, VRH support was proposed and accepted by 25 patients undergoing electrophysiological procedures. Data were compared with a control group (n = 61) enrolled during the following three-month period. Both groups underwent the measurement of the duration of intervention, the consumption of analgesics and hypnotics, and their pain and comfort using a validated visual analogue scale (VAS 0−10). Results: The baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups, including age. There were no differences in procedure duration (46 (±29) vs. 56 (±32) min, p = 0.18) or in hypnotic/antalgic consumption (midazolam 1.95 (±1.44) vs. 2.00 (±1.22) mg, p = 0.83; sufentanyl 3.78 (±2.87) vs. 3.58 (±2.48) μg, p = 0.9) between the control and VRH groups. In a multivariate analysis, the use of VRH was independently associated with lower comfort during the procedure assessed by postoperative visual analogue scale (OR 15.00 [95% CI 4.77−47.16], p < 0.01). There was no influence of VRH use on pain or drug consumption. Conclusions: In our experience, compared with VRH, human care is preferable during procedures in electrophysiology lab to improve the comfort of the patient. VRH has no influence on pain or drug consumption.

Indexed as

electrophysiologyhypnosisinterventional cardiac electrophysiologyvirtual realityvirtual reality hypnosis

Identifiers

PMID35807198
PMCPMC9267480
OpenAlexW4284709434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.