ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2026
Virtual reality in perioperative medicine: An evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2026. 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.
- Medical Extended Reality in Perioperative Medicine: A Scoping Review of Intervention Development, Feasibility Evaluation, and Translational Readiness.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
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
Background: Virtual reality (VR) has emerged as an innovative tool in perioperative medicine, with its growing interest in its potential to improve patient outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to critically assess the effectiveness of VR interventions in perioperative medicine, focussing on anxiety reduction, pain management, patient education, and satisfaction. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for peer-reviewed studies published between January 2000 and December 2024. Studies involving adult and paediatric surgical patients, utilising VR interventions compared to standard care or alternative approaches, were included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed using standardised forms and appropriate tools. Meta-analysis was conducted for continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs). Results: From 193 identified records, 47 studies were included in qualitative synthesis, with 15 studies providing quantitative data for meta-analysis. VR interventions consistently reduced perioperative anxiety {MD - 1.53 on visual analogue scale (VAS), 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.21 to -0.85; MD -3.85 on State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), 95% CI -5.69 to -2.01} and procedural anxiety in paediatric populations (SMD -0.70, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.47). VR also demonstrated a modest but significant effect on postoperative pain (MD -0.67, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.04) and significantly improved patient satisfaction (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.95). Immersive VR modalities and therapeutic content were most effective, especially in minor surgical procedures and paediatric populations. No significant adverse events were reported. Conclusion: VR interventions are effective in reducing perioperative anxiety and pain, improving patient satisfaction, and are well tolerated across diverse surgical settings.
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.