Trial reportScientific reports2025
Virtual reality and hypnosis for symptom alleviation before bone marrow procedure.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone marrow aspiration biopsy (BMAB) commonly causes anxiety in patients, negatively affecting their overall procedural experience. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of hypnosis and virtual reality (VR) compared to standard-of-care in improving concerns of patients undergoing BMAB. In this exploratory open-label randomized-controlled trial, adult patients undergoing BMAB were randomly assigned to hypnosis, VR, or control. Interventions included a 7-minute prerecorded hypnosis session or immersive VR experience immediately prior to the procedure. Patient concerns were measured using the Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCAW) questionnaire at baseline (T1), post-intervention (T2), and post-procedure (T3). The primary endpoint was the effect of the interventions on the improvement of patients' concerns score in T1-T2 and T1-T3 periods. Sixty-seven patients were randomly assigned to hypnosis (n = 22), VR (n = 24), or control (n = 21). Mean age was 61 years. Baseline MYCAW score was significantly lower in the control group (3.3 ± 1.7) as compared to both the hypnosis (4.9 ± 1.2) and VR (4.3 ± 1.7) groups (p < 0.001). These scores significantly decreased immediately post-intervention in the VR group compared to control even when considering baseline MYCAW in sensitivity analysis (p = 0.003), though this effect did not persist post-procedure (p = 0.62). Younger, less comorbid and highly absorptive patients derived the largest benefit from VR (p < 0.001). Physiological variables showed no significant differences among groups but there was a non-significant trend of lower doses of sedation in the VR group (p = 0.48) and of higher doses of local anesthesia in the control group (p = 0.13). VR demonstrated an immediate beneficial effect in improving patient concerns before BMAB even after adjustment for baseline differences. These exploratory findings support integrating mind-body interventions into clinical hematology settings but should be interpreted with caution and inform future adequately powered trials.
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.