儿童急慢性疼痛的扩展现实(XR):系统评价和证据缺口图。

IF 2.1 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Courtney W Hess, Brittany N Rosenbloom, Giulia Mesaroli, Cristal Lopez, Nhat Ngo, Estreya Cohen, Carley Ouellette, Jeffrey I Gold, Deirdre Logan, Laura E Simons, Jennifer N Stinson
{"title":"儿童急慢性疼痛的扩展现实(XR):系统评价和证据缺口图。","authors":"Courtney W Hess, Brittany N Rosenbloom, Giulia Mesaroli, Cristal Lopez, Nhat Ngo, Estreya Cohen, Carley Ouellette, Jeffrey I Gold, Deirdre Logan, Laura E Simons, Jennifer N Stinson","doi":"10.2196/63854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of extended reality (XR), including virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), for treating pain has accelerated in the last 10 years. XR is an attractive biobehavioral intervention that may support management of pain or pain-related disability. Reviews of the literature pertaining to adults report promising results, particularly for acute procedural pain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to (1) summarize the available evidence with respect to feasibility, safety, and effectiveness (pain intensity) of XR for pediatric acute and chronic pain; (2) summarize assessment tools used to measure study outcomes; and (3) identify gaps in evidence to guide future research efforts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a systematic review of the literature. Multiple databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO) were searched from inception until March 2023. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were reviewed by 2 team members to determine eligibility. Articles were included if the (1) participants were aged 0 to 18 years; (2) study intervention was VR or AR; (3) study outcomes included safety, feasibility, acceptability, or effectiveness on the outcome of pain; and (4) study design was observational or interventional. Data were collected on bibliographic information; study characteristics; XR characteristics; outcome domains; outcome measures; and study findings pertaining to safety, feasibility, and effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 90 articles in the review. All included studies used VR, and 93% (84/90) studied VR in the context of acute pain. Of the 90 studies, 74 studies were randomized trials, and 15 studies were observational. Safety was assessed in 23 studies of acute pain, with 13 studies reporting no adverse events and 10 studies reporting events of low concern. Feasibility was assessed in 27 studies. Of the 84 studies of acute pain, 62% (52/84) reported a positive effect on pain intensity, 21% (18/84) reported no effect, and 13% (11/84) reported mixed effects. All 6 studies of chronic pain reported a positive effect on pain intensity. An evidence gap map was used to illuminate gaps in specific research areas stratified by subtypes of pain. Risk of bias assessment revealed 67 studies had a moderate risk of bias, 17 studies had a high risk, and 5 studies were deemed to be low risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current body of literature around XR for pediatric pain is focused on acute pain with promising results of safety and effectiveness on pain intensity. The literature pertaining to chronic pain lags behind, limiting our ability to draw conclusions. The risk of bias in studies is problematic in this field, with the inherent challenge of blinding participants and researchers to the intervention. Future research should aim to measure effectiveness beyond pain intensity with a consistent approach to measuring key outcome domains and measures. Current efforts are underway to establish expert consensus on best research practices in this field.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Prospero CRD42022307153; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022307153.</p>","PeriodicalId":36223,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting","volume":"8 ","pages":"e63854"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extended Reality (XR) in Pediatric Acute and Chronic Pain: Systematic Review and Evidence Gap Map.\",\"authors\":\"Courtney W Hess, Brittany N Rosenbloom, Giulia Mesaroli, Cristal Lopez, Nhat Ngo, Estreya Cohen, Carley Ouellette, Jeffrey I Gold, Deirdre Logan, Laura E Simons, Jennifer N Stinson\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/63854\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of extended reality (XR), including virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), for treating pain has accelerated in the last 10 years. XR is an attractive biobehavioral intervention that may support management of pain or pain-related disability. Reviews of the literature pertaining to adults report promising results, particularly for acute procedural pain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to (1) summarize the available evidence with respect to feasibility, safety, and effectiveness (pain intensity) of XR for pediatric acute and chronic pain; (2) summarize assessment tools used to measure study outcomes; and (3) identify gaps in evidence to guide future research efforts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a systematic review of the literature. Multiple databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO) were searched from inception until March 2023. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were reviewed by 2 team members to determine eligibility. Articles were included if the (1) participants were aged 0 to 18 years; (2) study intervention was VR or AR; (3) study outcomes included safety, feasibility, acceptability, or effectiveness on the outcome of pain; and (4) study design was observational or interventional. Data were collected on bibliographic information; study characteristics; XR characteristics; outcome domains; outcome measures; and study findings pertaining to safety, feasibility, and effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 90 articles in the review. All included studies used VR, and 93% (84/90) studied VR in the context of acute pain. Of the 90 studies, 74 studies were randomized trials, and 15 studies were observational. Safety was assessed in 23 studies of acute pain, with 13 studies reporting no adverse events and 10 studies reporting events of low concern. Feasibility was assessed in 27 studies. Of the 84 studies of acute pain, 62% (52/84) reported a positive effect on pain intensity, 21% (18/84) reported no effect, and 13% (11/84) reported mixed effects. All 6 studies of chronic pain reported a positive effect on pain intensity. An evidence gap map was used to illuminate gaps in specific research areas stratified by subtypes of pain. Risk of bias assessment revealed 67 studies had a moderate risk of bias, 17 studies had a high risk, and 5 studies were deemed to be low risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current body of literature around XR for pediatric pain is focused on acute pain with promising results of safety and effectiveness on pain intensity. The literature pertaining to chronic pain lags behind, limiting our ability to draw conclusions. The risk of bias in studies is problematic in this field, with the inherent challenge of blinding participants and researchers to the intervention. Future research should aim to measure effectiveness beyond pain intensity with a consistent approach to measuring key outcome domains and measures. Current efforts are underway to establish expert consensus on best research practices in this field.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Prospero CRD42022307153; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022307153.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36223,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"e63854\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/63854\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/63854","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的10年里,包括虚拟现实(VR)和增强现实(AR)在内的扩展现实(XR)在治疗疼痛方面的应用加速了。XR是一种有吸引力的生物行为干预,可以支持疼痛或疼痛相关残疾的管理。有关成人的文献综述报告了有希望的结果,特别是急性程序性疼痛。目的:本研究旨在(1)总结XR治疗小儿急慢性疼痛的可行性、安全性和有效性(疼痛强度)方面的现有证据;(2)总结用于衡量研究结果的评估工具;(3)找出证据上的差距,以指导未来的研究工作。方法:对相关文献进行系统回顾。多个数据库(CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO)从成立到2023年3月进行了检索。题目、摘要和全文文章由2名团队成员审查,以确定资格。如果(1)参与者年龄在0至18岁之间,则纳入文章;(2)研究干预为VR或AR;(3)研究结果包括对疼痛结果的安全性、可行性、可接受性或有效性;(4)研究设计为观察性或干预性。数据收集书目信息;研究特点;XR特征;结果域;结果措施;并研究有关安全性、可行性和有效性的研究结果。结果:我们纳入了90篇文章。所有纳入的研究都使用了VR, 93%(84/90)在急性疼痛的情况下研究了VR。在这90项研究中,74项是随机试验,15项是观察性研究。23项研究对急性疼痛的安全性进行了评估,其中13项研究报告没有不良事件,10项研究报告了低关注事件。在27项研究中评估了可行性。在84项关于急性疼痛的研究中,62%(52/84)报告了对疼痛强度的积极影响,21%(18/84)报告没有效果,13%(11/84)报告了混合效果。所有6项关于慢性疼痛的研究都报告了对疼痛强度的积极影响。一个证据缺口图被用来阐明在特定的研究领域的差距按疼痛的亚型分层。偏倚风险评估显示,67项研究具有中等偏倚风险,17项研究具有高风险,5项研究被认为是低风险。结论:目前关于XR治疗儿童疼痛的文献主要集中在急性疼痛上,在疼痛强度的安全性和有效性方面取得了令人鼓舞的结果。有关慢性疼痛的文献滞后,限制了我们得出结论的能力。在这一领域,研究中的偏倚风险是有问题的,其固有的挑战是使参与者和研究人员对干预措施视而不见。未来的研究应该旨在通过一致的方法来衡量关键结果领域和措施来衡量疼痛强度以外的有效性。目前正在努力就这一领域的最佳研究实践建立专家共识。试验注册:普洛斯彼罗CRD42022307153;https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022307153。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Extended Reality (XR) in Pediatric Acute and Chronic Pain: Systematic Review and Evidence Gap Map.

Background: The use of extended reality (XR), including virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), for treating pain has accelerated in the last 10 years. XR is an attractive biobehavioral intervention that may support management of pain or pain-related disability. Reviews of the literature pertaining to adults report promising results, particularly for acute procedural pain.

Objective: This study aimed to (1) summarize the available evidence with respect to feasibility, safety, and effectiveness (pain intensity) of XR for pediatric acute and chronic pain; (2) summarize assessment tools used to measure study outcomes; and (3) identify gaps in evidence to guide future research efforts.

Methods: This study is a systematic review of the literature. Multiple databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO) were searched from inception until March 2023. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were reviewed by 2 team members to determine eligibility. Articles were included if the (1) participants were aged 0 to 18 years; (2) study intervention was VR or AR; (3) study outcomes included safety, feasibility, acceptability, or effectiveness on the outcome of pain; and (4) study design was observational or interventional. Data were collected on bibliographic information; study characteristics; XR characteristics; outcome domains; outcome measures; and study findings pertaining to safety, feasibility, and effectiveness.

Results: We included 90 articles in the review. All included studies used VR, and 93% (84/90) studied VR in the context of acute pain. Of the 90 studies, 74 studies were randomized trials, and 15 studies were observational. Safety was assessed in 23 studies of acute pain, with 13 studies reporting no adverse events and 10 studies reporting events of low concern. Feasibility was assessed in 27 studies. Of the 84 studies of acute pain, 62% (52/84) reported a positive effect on pain intensity, 21% (18/84) reported no effect, and 13% (11/84) reported mixed effects. All 6 studies of chronic pain reported a positive effect on pain intensity. An evidence gap map was used to illuminate gaps in specific research areas stratified by subtypes of pain. Risk of bias assessment revealed 67 studies had a moderate risk of bias, 17 studies had a high risk, and 5 studies were deemed to be low risk.

Conclusions: The current body of literature around XR for pediatric pain is focused on acute pain with promising results of safety and effectiveness on pain intensity. The literature pertaining to chronic pain lags behind, limiting our ability to draw conclusions. The risk of bias in studies is problematic in this field, with the inherent challenge of blinding participants and researchers to the intervention. Future research should aim to measure effectiveness beyond pain intensity with a consistent approach to measuring key outcome domains and measures. Current efforts are underway to establish expert consensus on best research practices in this field.

Trial registration: Prospero CRD42022307153; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022307153.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting
JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
5.40%
发文量
62
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信