SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2025
The effectiveness of virtual reality in people with osteoporosis or osteopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Osteoporosis is a global bone disease, and drug therapy carries the risk of side effects, requiring exploration of safe and effective alternative therapies. Virtual reality (VR) has shown potential in rehabilitation medicine, but its efficacy in the management of osteoporosis and osteopenia has not been systematically evaluated. Method: Using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, we conducted a comprehensive database search to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of VR on osteoporosis and bone loss. Trials published up to 30 March 2025 met our predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We extracted data, reviewed the literature. We assessed the methodological quality of the included trials and the certainty of the pooled evidence. Meta-analyses were performed using StataSE version 16. Results: Our meta-analysis included 216 patients from 5 RCTs. All cases included in our study adopted the non-immersive VR intervention approach. Femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35-1.19, P < 0.0001, I Conclusion: This systematic evaluation provides valuable evidence for the management of osteoporosis and osteopenia through VR. However, given the overall low and very low level of evidence, the results need to be treated with caution. In the future, VR may be a potential treatment for osteoporosis and osteopenia. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251023178, PROSPERO, identifier CRD420251023178.
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.