Virtual reality for acute and chronic pain management in adult patients: a narrative review
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
Virtual reality is a computer-generated environment that immerses the user in an interactive artificial world. This ability to distract from reality has been utilised for the purposes of providing pain relief from noxious stimuli. As technology rapidly matures, there is potential for anaesthetists and pain physicians to incorporate virtual reality devices as non-pharmacological therapy in a multimodal pain management strategy. This systematic narrative review evaluates clinical studies that used virtual reality in adult patients for management of acute and chronic pain. A literature search found 690 citations, out of which 18 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Studies were assessed for quality using the Jadad and Nottingham-Ottawa Scales. Agreement on scores between independent assessors was 0.87 (95%CI 0.73-0.94). Studies investigated virtual reality use: intra-operatively; for labour analgesia; for wound dressing changes; and in multiple chronic pain conditions. Twelve studies showed reduced pain scores in acute or chronic pain with virtual reality therapy, five studies showed no superiority to control treatment arms and in one study, the virtual reality exposure group had a worsening of acute pain scores. Studies were heterogeneous in: methods; patient population; and type of virtual reality used. These limitations suggest the evidence-base in adult patients is currently immature and more rigorous studies are required to validate the use of virtual reality as a non-pharmacological adjunct in multimodal pain management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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