SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Virtual reality as a non-pharmacological adjuvant for anxiety in oncology care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite its growing presence in healthcare settings, research on the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) interventions for symptom experience of patients with cancer remains varied and requires a comprehensive synthesis to reach definitive conclusions.
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of VR interventions in managing anxiety among individuals diagnosed with cancer.
methodsA comprehensive search of Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus databases was conducted for studies published from 2000 to November 2025. Publications were evaluated by independent reviewers for inclusion. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed via Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies.
resultsTwenty-one publications satisfied the requirements for review inclusion. The meta-analysis demonstrated that VR-based interventions were significantly effective in the management of patients' anxiety, yielding a moderate-to-high effect size (SMD = -0.793, 95% CI = -1.403 to -0.184; Z = -2.551; p = 0.011). Most studies reported statistically significant decreases in anxiety scores across various cancer types, including breast, prostate, and ovarian cancers. No major side effects were reported, although minor instances of cyber sickness were managed by adjusting session durations. User satisfaction was exceptionally high, with satisfaction scores reaching 4.47/5 and 7.35/10. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results support the use of VR as an effective and safe non-pharmacological intervention for anxiety management. The findings highlight the potential for VR to be integrated into routine oncology nursing and palliative care to improve the patient experience during stressful treatments like chemotherapy.
conclusionVR-based interventions are an effective, safe, and highly acceptable approach for managing anxiety in patients with cancer. Further research is needed to support wider clinical implementation and to investigate the potential benefits of VR for other physical and psychological symptoms over longer follow-up periods.
trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022351573.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42799771What 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.