Effect of Virtual Reality-Based Interventions on Pain During Wound Care in Burn Patients; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Burn patients undergo daily painful wound care procedures, including washing, debridement, and dressing. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the effect of virtual reality (VR)-based interventions on pain during wound care in burn patients. Methods: A comprehensive systematic search was conducted on international electronic databases such as Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science with keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings such as "Virtual reality", "Virtual reality therapy", "Virtual reality exposure therapy", "Virtual reality immersion therapy", "Exergaming", "Active-video gaming", "Burns", "Wound healings", "Pain", and "Pain management" from the earliest to May 6, 2022. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist was used to assess the quality of randomized control trials and quasi-experimental studies. Results: :91.2%). Conclusion: It is suggested that health policymakers and managers equip burn wards with immersive VR devices to provide the basis for this intervention when caring for patients with burn wounds.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".