Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39668582›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical nursing2025

Do Extended Reality Interventions Benefit Patients Undergoing Elective Cardiac Surgical and Interventional Procedures? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Emma Harris, Steven Fenton, John Stephenson, Fiona Ewart, Salime Goharinezhad, Hyunkook Lee, Felicity Astin

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors.

Emma HarrisSchool of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care, Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7649-9763
Steven FentonSchool of Computing and Engineering, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK.
John StephensonSchool of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK.
Fiona EwartSchool of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care, Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.
Salime GoharinezhadSchool of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care, Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.
Hyunkook LeeSchool of Computing and Engineering, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK.
Felicity AstinSchool of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care, Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtended reality (XR) interventions have the potential to benefit patients undergoing elective cardiac surgical and interventional procedures. However, there are no systematic reviews with meta-analyses to guide clinical care.

aimTo critically evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of XR interventions on patient anxiety and pain and other associated outcomes.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA 2020 statement. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of five databases (CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Scopus) from inception to July 2023.

methodsScreening and data extraction was conducted independently by multiple reviewers. Stata (Version 17) was used to conduct meta-analyses for patient anxiety and pain. Secondary patient outcomes were summarised in a synthesis. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (Version 2) tool was applied to trials and the NHLBI Study Quality Assessment tools to all other study designs.

resultsOf the 3372 records identified, 22 were included, 10 of which were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analyses. Fifty-seven percent of randomised trials were rated as high risk of bias. Virtual reality (VR) was the only XR technology evaluated. VR significantly reduced pre-procedural anxiety (standardised mean difference: -1.29; 95% confidence interval - 1.96, -0.62, p < 0.001), and peri-procedural anxiety (standardised mean difference: -0.50; 95% confidence interval - 0.83, -0.18, p < 0.003) but did not reduce pain levels, compared with usual care. VR increased pre-procedural knowledge and postsurgical physical and pulmonary function. VR interventions may also improve emotional wellbeing, care delivery and physiological outcomes, but evidence was inconsistent.

conclusionsXR potentially benefits cardiac patients undergoing elective invasive procedures and surgery by reducing pre- and peri-procedural anxiety and increasing procedural knowledge and physical function. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Cardiac nurses' role can be supported by VR interventions to improve the patient experience and several aspects of patient care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Not applicable as this is a systematic review.

Indexed as

AnxietyCardiac Surgical ProceduresElective Surgical ProceduresVirtual RealityHumansanxietyextended realityinterventional cardiologypainpatient experiencepatient outcomessystematic reviewvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID39668582
PMCPMC11933515

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.