ReviewCureus2024
The Effectiveness of Virtual Reality on Anxiety and Pain Management in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Virtual reality in percutaneous coronary intervention: from coronary imaging and procedural planning to patient care.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Review
- Virtual reality for pain and anxiety reduction during venous puncture procedures : A within-subject clinical crossover study.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review of Virtual Reality's Impact on Anxiety During Palliative Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac procedure-related anxiety and pain can adversely affect outcomes and lead to patient dissatisfaction. Virtual reality (VR) offers a promising alternative to traditional therapies for improving patient experience. Our objective is to synthesize evidence and assess the effectiveness of VR in reducing cardiac procedure-related anxiety and pain compared to standard of care. We conducted a comprehensive search across various online databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, and COCHRANE, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on VR, cardiac procedures, anxiety, and pain. We utilized a random-effect model to generate effect estimates reported as standardized mean differences (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval. Our review comprised 10 studies with a total of 621 participants (intervention arm: 301, control arm: 320). Overall, among the seven studies evaluating anxiety outcomes, no significant difference in anxiety reduction was observed between the intervention and control groups (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.62, 95% CI -1.61, 0.37, p=0.22). However, studies using the same anxiety assessment tool demonstrated a significant improvement in the VR arm (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.98, -0.04, p=0.04). Conversely, the narrative synthesis of four studies examining pain revealed mixed results. Our findings suggest no significant difference in anxiety reduction between the VR and control groups. Future studies should employ standardized tools for assessing and reporting anxiety and pain to better understand the potential of VR in enhancing patient experience during cardiac procedures.
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.