SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Effects of VR interventions on pediatric ADHD: a systematic review, meta-analysis and exploratory machine-learning analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To synthesize the effects of virtual reality (VR) interventions across clinically distinct ADHD-related outcome domains in children and adolescents, compare the pattern of effects across these domains, and examine the robustness, certainty, and potential sources of between-study heterogeneity. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, IEEE Xplore, CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, and CNKI were searched for randomized controlled trials and controlled quasi-experimental studies of VR interventions in children and adolescents with ADHD. Outcomes were grouped into four clinical domains: ADHD/behavioral symptoms, executive/cognitive function, social/emotional function, and motor/visual-perceptual function. Random-effects meta-analyses within these domains were treated as the primary efficacy analyses, while an all-domain study-level composite was retained as a secondary descriptive synthesis. Safety, adherence/retention, and cybersickness were summarized at study level. Meta-regression and exploratory machine-learning analyses were used to investigate heterogeneity and were conducted separately from the meta-analytic pooling. Results: Thirteen studies involving 928 participants were included, of which 11 contributed to the quantitative syntheses. In the primary outcome-domain analyses, pooled Hedges' g values were 0.49 (95% CI -0.59 to 1.57) for ADHD/behavioral symptoms, 1.15 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.92) for executive/cognitive function, 0.51 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.93) for social/emotional function, and 0.88 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.74) for motor/visual-perceptual function. The dependence-adjusted comparison did not identify differences among domains (p = 0.624), and under Hartung-Knapp inference only the executive/cognitive confidence interval remained above zero. The secondary all-domain synthesis yielded g = 0.98 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.50), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 91.7%) and a prediction interval spanning the null (-0.69 to 2.65). Exploratory subgroup, meta-regression, and machine-learning analyses did not identify reliable explanations for heterogeneity. Safety and adherence reporting was heterogeneous; no serious intervention-related adverse event was reported among studies reporting safety, but event incidence could not be estimated. GRADE certainty was very low across all four outcome domains. Conclusion: Domain-specific syntheses identified positive signals for executive/cognitive, social/emotional, and motor/visual-perceptual outcomes, with the clearest support for executive/cognitive function, whereas the ADHD/behavioral estimate remained uncertain. These findings support further evaluation of VR as an adjunctive intervention, although the current evidence does not support domain superiority or consistent effects across settings. The small and heterogeneous evidence base, substantial risk of bias, and very low GRADE certainty limit confidence in the magnitude and reproducibility of the observed effects. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420261405127.
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.