ArticleSports health
Virtual Reality Application for Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening: Current Clinical Protocol Versus a Novel Prototype.
Article in Sports health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in ocular motor and pupil biomarkers for neurological disorders.Brain communications · 2026Review
- Acceptability, feasibility, and user satisfaction of a virtual reality relaxation intervention in a psychiatric outpatient setting during the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVirtual reality (VR) has been explored to improve baseline and postinjury assessments in sport-related concussion (SRC). Some experience symptoms related to VR, unrelated to concussion. This may deter use of vestibular/ocular motor screening (VOMS) using VR. Baseline VR VOMS symptomatology differentiates baseline from overall symptomatology. HYPOTHESIS: There will be no difference between current clinical manual VOMS (MAN), a clinical prototype (PRO), and VR for symptom provocation change score (SPCS) and near point of convergence (NPC) average score in a healthy population and sex differences among the 3 modes of administration. STUDY
designCohort study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.
methodsA total of 688 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I student-athletes completed VOMS using 3 methods (MAN, N = 111; female athletes, N = 47; male athletes, N = 64; average age, 21 years; PRO, N = 365; female athletes, N = 154; male athletes, N = 211; average age, 21 years; VR, N = 212; female athletes, N = 78; male athletes, N = 134; average age = 20 years) over a 3-year period (2019-2021) during annual baseline testing. Exclusion criteria were as follows: self-reported motion sickness in the past 6 months, existing or previous neurological insult, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities, or noncorrected vision impairment. Administration of MAN followed the current clinical protocols, PRO used a novel prototype, and VR used an HTC Vive Pro Eye head mounted display. Symptom provocation was compared using Mann-Whitney
resultsMAN had significantly (
conclusionUsing a VR system to administer the VOMS may not elicit additional symptoms, resulting in fewer false positives and is somewhat stable between sexes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: VOMS may allow for standardization among administrators and reduce possible false positives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.