| Literature DB >> 35177996 |
Bahram Dehghan1, Saied Saeidimehr2, Mehdi Sayyah3, Fakher Rahim4,5.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR)-based technology on emotional response and symptoms in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). We systematically searched major electronic databases, including PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, ISI Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane central, up to April 14, 2021, with no data or language limits. We performed reference, related articles, and citation searches to find additional articles. We included original articles comparing and studying VR-based technology in patients with OCD against the control group. We observed that VR significantly increases in anxiety (SMD = 2.92; 95% CI 1.89-3.94, p < 0.0001; I 2 = 95%), disgust (SMD = 2.52; 95% CI 1.36-3.68, p < 0.0001; I 2 = 95%), urge to wash (SMD = 3.12; 95% CI 1.92-4.32, p < 0.0001; I 2 = 94%), checking time (SMD = 1.06; 95% CI 0.71-1.4, p < 0.0001; I 2 = 44%), number of checking behavior (SMD = 1.45; 95% CI 0.06-2.83, p = 0.04; I 2 = 93%), and uncertainty (SMD = 2.59; 95% CI 0.90-4.27, p = 0.003; I 2 = 70%) in OCD patients compared with healthy controls using a random-effect model. This meta-analysis found that this environment has a moderate enhancement in emotional response and symptoms test scores of patients with OCD. However, our findings should be generalized with caution due to the lack of standardized methods and high heterogeneity among included evidence. The appropriate mode of integrating VR-based technology for patients with OCD requires more exploration.Entities:
Keywords: emotional response generation; meta-analysis; obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD); symptoms provocation; virtual reality (VR)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35177996 PMCID: PMC8846333 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.733584
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
The description of populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study designs (PICOS) used in this review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients with OCD | Virtual reality (VR) |
| Original articles comparing and studying VR technology in patients with OCD against the control (case–control) |
Figure 1PRISMA flowchart of the study selection process.
Characteristics and results of included studies that report on the effectiveness of virtual reality on emotional and symptoms in patients with OCD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||
| Inozu et al. ( | Turkey | 66/22.0 ± 2.43 | OCD | OCD-c | Non-immersive | Computer-based HTC Vive VR system | VR can be used as an alternative exposure tool in the treatment of contamination-based OCD | 5 |
| van Bennekom et al. ( | Netherlands | 52/– | OCD | HC | Non-immersive | VR environment through a virtual version of the Multiple Errand Test (V-MET) using the NeuroVR software | VR game could help in assessing core OCD symptoms and recognizing OCD | 8 |
| McCabe-Bennett et al. ( | Canada | 76/34.3 ± 12.43 | OCD | OCD-c | Non-immersive | Visual and auditory simulation (i.e., white room noise) with an Oculus Rift_ consumer-release version HMD, model number 301-00200-03 | VR provided an opportunity to examine responses to increasing clutter levels | 8 |
| Jalal et al. ( | Italy | 29/26.7 ± 6.43 | OCD | HC | Immersive | VR environment included visual and RHI | Using a fake hand during the RHI, instead, may provide a clever and convenient alternative | 5 |
| Pedroli et al. ( | Italy | 58/36.7 ± 12.73 | OCD | HC | Non-immersive | NeuroVR (Version 2.0) a free software with a pre-existing virtual environment followed by NeuroVirtual 3D | Discriminating OCD patients from controls, with VR | 8 |
| van Bennekom et al. ( | Netherlands | 16/31.5 ± 7.9 | OCD | HC | Non-immersive | VR environment included visual and RHI | VR is a potential valuable tool to objectify and standardize an OCD diagnosis | 8 |
| Laforest et al. ( | Canada | 32/30.5 ± 7.9 | OCD | HC | Immersive | VR immersion system is made of six projected surfaces: four walls, the floor, and the ceiling all running Virtool VPPublisher Unlimited 5.0 | Unwanted negative side effects induced by immersions in VR were higher in the OCD group | 7 |
| la Paglia et al. ( | Italy | 32/33.07 ± 9.09 | OCD | HC | Immersive | VR environment through a V-MET using the NeuroVR software | VR is sensitive to evaluate the functional status of OCD patients with normal cognition | 8 |
| Cipresso et al. ( | Italy | 32/36.62 ± 11.09 | OCD | HC | Immersive | VR environment through a V-MET using the NeuroVR software | VR allowed us to take into account deficits of volition and the relative dys-executive functions associated with OCD patients | 8 |
| Kim et al. ( | Republic of Korea | 70/29.52 ± 10.07 | OCD | HC | Non-immersive | VR with an IBM-compatible computer and an SVGA color HMD with a three-degrees-of-freedom tracker | Behavioral measures are able to improve the assessment of OCD by VR | 7 |
| Kim et al. ( | Republic of Korea | 63/34.52 ± 9.17 | OCD | HC | Non-immersive | VR with an IBM-compatible computer and an SVGA color HMD with a three-degrees-of-freedom tracker | VR technology has a value as an anxiety-provoking or treatment tool for OCD | 8 |
VR, Virtual Reality; OCD, Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder; OCD-c, OCD-control; HC, Healthy controls; V-MET, virtual version of the Multiple Errand Test; HMD, head-mounted display, RHI, rubber hand illusion; SVGA, Supper Video Graphics Array; NOS scores categorized into three groups, including very high risk of bias (0–3 NOS points), high risk of bias (4–6), and low risk of bias (7–9).
Figure 2Forest plot for VR scoring. The green blocks indicate the weight assigned to the study, the horizontal line depicts the CI, and the black rhombus shows the overall result. IV, inverse variance; Std, standard.
Figure 3Forest plots for OCD symptoms. The green blocks indicate the weight assigned to the study, the horizontal line depicts the CI, and the black rhombus shows the overall result. IV, inverse variance; Std, standard.
Summary statistics for moderators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Asian | 6 | 4.07 | 2.22, 5.92 | <0.0001 | 97% |
| Europe | 4 | 2.13 | 0.47, 3.79 | 0.01 | 93% |
| America | 2 | 1.19 | 0.77, 1.60 | <0.0001 | 0% |
|
| |||||
| Non-immersive | 9 | 3.58 | 2.23, 4.94 | <0.0001 | 96% |
| Immersive | 3 | 1.01 | 0.62, 1.40 | <0.0001 | 0% |
|
| |||||
| HC | 6 | 3.35 | 1.76, 4.94 | <0.0001 | 97% |
| OCD-c | 6 | 2.5 | 1.02, 3.98 | 0.0009 | 94% |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Asian | 4 | 3.24 | 2.04, 4.44 | <0.0001 | 91% |
| Europe | 4 | 1.75 | −0.07, 3.57 | 0.06 | 95% |
| America | 0 | – | – | – | – |
|
| |||||
| Non-immersive | 6 | 3.21 | 1.98, 4.44 | <0.0001 | 92% |
| Immersive | 2 | 0.52 | −0.37, 1.41 | 0.25 | 74% |
|
| |||||
| HC | 4 | 1.75 | −0.07, 3.57 | 0.06 | 95% |
| OCD-c | 4 | 3.24 | 2.04, 4.44 | <0.0001 | 91% |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Asian | 4 | 4.27 | 2.52, 5.93 | <0.0001 | 93% |
| Europe | 3 | 2.21 | −0.09, 4.52 | 0.06 | 94% |
| America | 1 | – | – | – | – |
|
| |||||
| Non-immersive | 7 | 3.51 | 2.27, 4.74 | 0.0001 | 94% |
| Immersive | 1 | – | – | – | – |
|
| |||||
| HC | 3 | 2.21 | −0.09, 4.52 | 0.06 | 94% |
| OCD-c | 5 | 3.66 | 2.10, 5.22 | <0.0001 | 95% |
Meta-regression analysis for exploration of the sources of heterogeneity factors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | −1.07 | 0.98 | −2.32, 0.84 | 0.25 |
| Type of exposure | −0.29 | 0.82 | −2.07, 1.57 | 0.69 |
| Comparators | 0.37 | 0.91 | −1.35, 1.89 | 0.78 |
Figure 4Funnel plot analysis for emotional response (A) to VR environment and VR scoring (B) in patients with OCD.