Virtual Reality for Pain Management During High‐Resolution Manometry: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. HRM is typically performed in the office with local anesthesia only, and many patients find it unpleasant and painful. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of the use of a virtual reality (VR) headset on pain and anxiety outcomes in patients with dysphagia undergoing HRM. METHODS: Patients with dysphagia were prospectively recruited and randomized to undergo HRM with and without VR distraction. Data collected included the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-6 (STAI-6), the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, heart rate, and galvanic skin response (GSR) tracings. RESULTS: Forty subjects completed the study, including 20 subjects in the intervention arm and 20 in the control arm. There was evidence of a significant positive effect of VR on calmness (p = 0.0095) STAI-6 rating, as well as on physiologic measures of pain with significantly decreased GSR rise time (p = 0.0137) and average rate of change of conductance change (p = 0.0035). CONCLUSION: The use of VR during HRM catheter insertion increased calmness compared to control. Change of skin conductance was also reduced in the VR group, suggesting decreased physiologic pain. This study supports the consideration of the use of VR as a distraction tool to improve patient comfort during HRM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 134:1118-1126, 2024.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".