ReviewJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2026
Virtual Reality Interventions for Pediatric Pain and Anxiety Management During Emergency Department Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Virtual reality (VR) is a promising nonpharmacological intervention for managing procedural pain and anxiety in children. Its effectiveness in emergency department (ED) settings, where painful procedures occur under time pressure, remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated VR's impact on reducing pain and anxiety during pediatric ED procedures. Methods: A systematic search of Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to July 14, 2025, identified eligible randomized and nonrandomized studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions. Pain and anxiety outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Results: Sixteen studies including 1929 participants (905 VR, 766 control, 258 active/other interventions) were included, with most focusing on needle-related procedures. VR reduced self-reported peak procedural pain compared to routine care (mean difference (MD) = -0.76, 95% CI [-1.25, -0.27]) and active controls (MD = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.85, -0.17]). VR also reduced self-reported anxiety/fear relative to routine care (MD = -0.78, 95% CI [-1.48, -0.07]) and active controls (MD = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.13]). Caregiver-reported pain (MD = -1.22, 95% CI [-2.08, -0.37]) and anxiety/fear (MD = -1.52, 95% CI [-2.7, -0.34]) were similarly improved. Risk of bias was moderate to high. Conclusion: VR shows moderate reductions in pediatric procedural pain and anxiety in EDs, though study heterogeneity and methodological limitations reduce confidence in these findings. High-quality trials are needed to confirm effectiveness.
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.