SynthesisBMC public health2026
The effects of virtual reality on anxiety and depression in cancer patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 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
backgroundAnxiety and depression are prevalent yet undertreated in cancer patients, impairing quality of life, treatment adherence, and outcomes. Virtual reality, with its immersive and interactive features, offers a promising non-pharmacological intervention. However, a rigorous synthesis of randomized evidence is needed to establish its efficacy and identify key moderators of effectiveness, guiding targeted clinical implementation.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across seven electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, WanFang, VIP) from inception to December 10, 2025. Eligible studies were RCTs involving cancer patients, comparing a VR intervention targeting emotional distress to a non-VR control. Study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool were performed independently by reviewers. Primary outcomes were anxiety and depression. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis in R (meta package). Pooled effects were estimated as Standardized Mean Differences with 95% Confidence Intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed via I² and τ² statistics, and pre-specified subgroup analyses were conducted for the proposed moderators. Sensitivity analyses and assessment for small-study effects were performed.
resultsEighteen RCTs (total participants: N = 1303; VR group: n = 658, Control: n = 645) met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant beneficial effects of VR interventions on anxiety (17 RCTs, n = 1287; SMD = -1.16, 95% CI: -1.60 to -0.71; P < 0.001) and depression (7 RCTs, n = 543; SMD = -1.28, 95% CI: -2.52 to -0.04; P = 0.04), with both outcomes favoring the VR groups. Substantial heterogeneity was observed. Risk of bias assessment indicated that most studies had some concerns regarding bias, with three studies rated low risk, twelve with some concerns, and three high risk. Subgroup analyses suggested variations in effect sizes across potential effect modifiers, though findings were exploratory.
conclusionsThis review suggests that VR interventions may alleviate anxiety and depression in cancer patients, with potentially clinically meaningful effects. The findings advance the field by shifting focus from overall efficacy toward contextual factors influencing outcomes, providing insights for personalized application. However, moderate-certainty evidence and substantial heterogeneity underscore the need for future large-scale, rigorous RCTs that prioritize standardized reporting, mechanistic exploration, and optimize future clinical implementation.
trial registrationPROSPERO (Registration No. CRD420251089141).
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.