SynthesisBMJ open respiratory research2025
Virtual reality in adults with respiratory diseases experiencing dyspnoea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of Virtual Reality Interventions on Anxiety and Depression in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOur aim was to evaluate virtual reality's effects in dyspnoea's management.
methodsInformation sources: Trials were identified through a systematic search carried out on MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL until 17 March 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies were controlled trials including adults with dyspnoea associated with respiratory diseases, for whom virtual reality was implemented and compared with another intervention. Risk of bias: Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the ROB 2 tool. SYNTHESIS OF
resultsThe primary outcome was dyspnoea. Secondary outcomes included exercise capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and muscle function. Effect size was expressed using standardised mean difference (SMD) or MD for primary and secondary outcomes, respectively (random-effects model). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence.
resultsIncluded studies: 13 studies were selected, including 483 adults and using non-immersive tools (n=7) or immersive tools (n=6). Risk of bias in these studies was low (n=1), some concerns (n=8) and high risk (n=4). SYNTHESIS OF
resultsNo difference was found in dyspnoea (8 studies, 224 participants; SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.86, I
conclusionsLimitations of evidence: The evidence is very uncertain about virtual reality's effects on dyspnoea due to risk of bias, imprecision and heterogeneity.
interpretationFurther studies are needed and should explore various aspects of the application of immersive virtual reality. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023443280.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.