Johan Wormser, Christophe Romanet, Marine Cachanado, Maëlle Youinou, Gilles Chatellier, Irene Torres Sánchez, François Philippart
{"title":"Virtual reality in adults with respiratory diseases experiencing dyspnoea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Johan Wormser, Christophe Romanet, Marine Cachanado, Maëlle Youinou, Gilles Chatellier, Irene Torres Sánchez, François Philippart","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our aim was to evaluate virtual reality's effects in dyspnoea's management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Information sources: Trials were identified through a systematic search carried out on MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL until 17 March 2025.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Eligible studies were controlled trials including adults with dyspnoea associated with respiratory diseases, for whom virtual reality was implemented and compared with another intervention. Risk of bias: Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the ROB 2 tool.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>The primary outcome was dyspnoea. Secondary outcomes included exercise capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and muscle function. Effect size was expressed using standardised mean difference (SMD) or MD for primary and secondary outcomes, respectively (random-effects model). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Included studies: 13 studies were selected, including 483 adults and using non-immersive tools (n=7) or immersive tools (n=6). Risk of bias in these studies was low (n=1), some concerns (n=8) and high risk (n=4).</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>No difference was found in dyspnoea (8 studies, 224 participants; SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.86, I<sup>2</sup>=88.2%), exercise capacity (5 studies, 183 participants; MD 3.62, 95% CI -19.39 to 26.63, I<sup>2</sup>=39.8%) and in HRQOL (4 studies, 127 participants; MD -11.81, 95% CI -42.95 to 19.33, I<sup>2</sup>=98.9%). The data available were insufficient to conduct a pooled analysis for muscle function.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Limitations of evidence: The evidence is very uncertain about virtual reality's effects on dyspnoea due to risk of bias, imprecision and heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Further studies are needed and should explore various aspects of the application of immersive virtual reality.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023443280.</p>","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002722","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate virtual reality's effects in dyspnoea's management.
Methods: Information sources: Trials were identified through a systematic search carried out on MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL until 17 March 2025.
Eligibility criteria: Eligible studies were controlled trials including adults with dyspnoea associated with respiratory diseases, for whom virtual reality was implemented and compared with another intervention. Risk of bias: Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the ROB 2 tool.
Synthesis of results: The primary outcome was dyspnoea. Secondary outcomes included exercise capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and muscle function. Effect size was expressed using standardised mean difference (SMD) or MD for primary and secondary outcomes, respectively (random-effects model). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence.
Results: Included studies: 13 studies were selected, including 483 adults and using non-immersive tools (n=7) or immersive tools (n=6). Risk of bias in these studies was low (n=1), some concerns (n=8) and high risk (n=4).
Synthesis of results: No difference was found in dyspnoea (8 studies, 224 participants; SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.86, I2=88.2%), exercise capacity (5 studies, 183 participants; MD 3.62, 95% CI -19.39 to 26.63, I2=39.8%) and in HRQOL (4 studies, 127 participants; MD -11.81, 95% CI -42.95 to 19.33, I2=98.9%). The data available were insufficient to conduct a pooled analysis for muscle function.
Conclusions: Limitations of evidence: The evidence is very uncertain about virtual reality's effects on dyspnoea due to risk of bias, imprecision and heterogeneity.
Interpretation: Further studies are needed and should explore various aspects of the application of immersive virtual reality.
期刊介绍：
BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
