Scientific Evidence for the Effectiveness of Virtual Reality for Pain Reduction in Adults with Acute or Chronic Pain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review was to determine the level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of VR for pain management in adults with pain. A comprehensive systematic search involving major health care databases was undertaken to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and descriptive studies. Twenty-seven studies were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was strong (Level 1a) evidence of a greater benefit from immersive VR and limited evidence (Level 2a) for the effectiveness of non-immersive VR in reducing acute pain. Moreover, there is limited evidence (Level 2a) of effectiveness of immersive VR compared to no VR for reducing chronic pain. There is currently no published study that has explored the effectiveness of non-immersive VR for chronic pain (level 5). It is concluded that VR can be recommended as a standard or adjunct clinical intervention for pain management at least in the management of acute pain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it