MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392195348 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1331826

Virtual reality hypnosis prior to radiofrequency thermocoagulation for patients with chronic pain: an exploratory clinical trial

2024· article· en· W4392195348 on OpenAlexaff
Othmane Safy, Floriane Rousseaux, Marie-Élisabeth Faymonville, Dominique Libbrecht, Robert N. Fontaine, M Raaf, Cécile Staquet, Hadrien Tasset, Vincent Bonhomme, Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse, Aminata Bicego

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersFondazione Europea Ricerca BiomedicaFonds Léon FredericqKoning BoudewijnstichtingUniversité de LiègeStichting Tegen KankerAstraZeneca FoundationFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSFondation contre le CancerAstraZeneca
KeywordsAnxietyHypnosisIntervention (counseling)Chronic painRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyTrait anxietyClinical trialPsychologyMedicinePsychiatrySurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The management of chronic pain may involve an array of tools, including radiofrequency thermocoagulation (Rf-Tc) of sensory nerve terminals. Like many other invasive procedures, Rf-Tc can generate anxiety in a lot of patients, either during the expectation of the procedure or in the course of it. Virtual reality hypnosis (VRH) is a promising tool for managing anxiety and pain in several situations, but its anxiolytic property has not been investigated in participants with chronic pain and going through a Rf-Tc procedure. Objectives: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of VRH for reducing self-assessed anxiety in participants with chronic pain, when received in preparation for Rf-Tc. Materials and methods: This prospective, controlled trial was conducted in the Interdisciplinary Algology Centre of the University Hospital of Liège (Belgium). Participants were assigned to two groups: VRH or control (usual care). Assessment was carried-out at 4 time points: T0 (one week before Rf-Tc); T1 (pre-intervention, on the day of Rf-Tc); T2 (immediately after the VRH intervention outside of the Rf-Tc room); and T3 (right after Rf-Tc). Medical, sociodemographic data, anxiety trait and immersive tendencies were collected at T0. Anxiety state and pain intensity were assessed at each time points. Satisfaction was examined at T3. Results: Forty-two participants were quasi-randomly assigned to the VRH or control group. No statistically significant interaction group by time was observed regarding all measured variables, including primary endpoint. However, a significant effect of time was found for anxiety and pain when considering both groups together, toward a progressive reduction. Conclusion: In the context of our study, there appears to be no significant effect of VRH at reducing anxiety in participants with chronic pain undergoing Rf-Tc. Anxiety decreases along the procedure, while pain is attenuated by the local anesthetic infiltration of the Rf site. Our results suggest that the presence of a caregiver throughout the procedure might explain the progressive decrease in anxiety. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to precisely study the effectiveness of the VRH tool, and the possibility of using it as a complementary approach for anxiety during invasive procedures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207