ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2023
Case Report: Virtual reality training for phantom limb pain after amputation.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Innovative exploration of phantom limb pain treatment based on extended reality technology.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several reports have demonstrated the effectiveness of neurorehabilitation, such as mirror therapy or virtual reality, in treating phantom limb pain (PLP). This case study describes the effect of virtual reality training (VRT) on severe, long-term PLP and upper limb activity on the amputated side in a patient who underwent digit amputation 9 years prior. A woman in her 40 s underwent amputation of 2-5 fingers 9 years prior due to a workplace accident. She experienced persistent pain in the palms of her hand near the amputation sites. A single case design (ABA'B') was applied. Periods A and A' were set as periods without VRT intervention, and Periods B and B' were set as periods with VRT intervention. Periods A, B, A', and B' lasted 4, 10, 8, and 10 weeks, respectively. VRT was a task during which visual stimulation and upper limb movements were linked. The task consisted of catching a rolling ball in the display with a virtual hand, operated with both hands using a controller. VRT was performed once every 2-4 weeks for 30 min. Pain intensity was assessed using the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2. Bilateral upper limb activity was measured continuously for 24 h using a triaxial accelerometer attached to the right and left wrist joints. The pain intensity was 147/220 points during Period A, 128 points during Period B, 93 points during Period A', and 100 points during Period B', showing a gradual decrease. Upper limb activity occurred mainly on the intact side during Periods A and B, whereas the activity on the amputated side increased 2-fold after Period A', and both upper extremities were used equally. Virtual reality training resulted in reduced pain intensity and increased activity in the upper limb. VRT may have induced reintegration of the sensory-motor loop, leading to a decrease in the PLP intensity. The upper limb activity on the amputated side may have also increased with the pain reduction. These results suggest that VRT may be valuable in reducing severe, long-term PLP.
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.