Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026
Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Versus Exercise-Based Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Peralta-Álvarez Julián, Nieto-Escámez Francisco, López-Liria Remedios, González-Geréz Juan José, Benzo-Iglesias María Jesús, Rocamora-Pérez Patricia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the comparative effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) versus exercise-based interventions for pain, disability, fear of movement, and quality of life in patients with chronic spinal pain.
METHODS: Five databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) in the last 10 years, comparing VR versus exercise-based interventions (with or without passive adjunct modalities) for adults (≥ 18 years) with chronic spinal pain. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and GRADE framework, followed by random-effect meta-analyses.
RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs comprising 659 participants were included, with most presenting a high risk of bias. Based on very low-certainty evidence, VR showed statistically significant superiority over exercise-based interventions for pain (VAS: MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.92 to -0.18; p = 0.02; I2 = 94%; NPRS: MD -0.95, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.31; p = 0.003; I2 = 14%) and kinesiophobia (MD -3.52, 95% CI -6.08 to -0.96; p = 0.007; I2 = 0%). None of these statistically significant reductions met the commonly established thresholds for Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for chronic spinal pain populations. Very low-certainty evidence found no significant differences for functional disability (MD -1.38, 95% CI -5.43 to 2.67; p = 0.50; I2 = 0%), and results on quality of life were heterogeneous and inconclusive.
DISCUSSION: Although VR may offer statistical advantages over exercise-based interventions for pain and kinesiophobia, the overall certainty of the evidence remains very low. The non-attainment of the MCID thresholds, coupled with high risk of bias and substantial statistical heterogeneity, underscores the need for strict caution.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD420251101584).
METHODS: Five databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) in the last 10 years, comparing VR versus exercise-based interventions (with or without passive adjunct modalities) for adults (≥ 18 years) with chronic spinal pain. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and GRADE framework, followed by random-effect meta-analyses.
RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs comprising 659 participants were included, with most presenting a high risk of bias. Based on very low-certainty evidence, VR showed statistically significant superiority over exercise-based interventions for pain (VAS: MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.92 to -0.18; p = 0.02; I2 = 94%; NPRS: MD -0.95, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.31; p = 0.003; I2 = 14%) and kinesiophobia (MD -3.52, 95% CI -6.08 to -0.96; p = 0.007; I2 = 0%). None of these statistically significant reductions met the commonly established thresholds for Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for chronic spinal pain populations. Very low-certainty evidence found no significant differences for functional disability (MD -1.38, 95% CI -5.43 to 2.67; p = 0.50; I2 = 0%), and results on quality of life were heterogeneous and inconclusive.
DISCUSSION: Although VR may offer statistical advantages over exercise-based interventions for pain and kinesiophobia, the overall certainty of the evidence remains very low. The non-attainment of the MCID thresholds, coupled with high risk of bias and substantial statistical heterogeneity, underscores the need for strict caution.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD420251101584).