Abstract
Chronic neck pain is one of the most frequent musculoskeletal disorders, with high prevalence worldwide. Rehabilitation is an essential component of therapeutic strategy. Virtual reality based rehabilitation (VRBR) is a powerful distraction technique that could be beneficial for chronic neck pain patients. The objective of this systematic review was to analyse the effectiveness of VRBR in chronic neck pain treatment. We followed the PRISMA guidelines and used four databases (CINAHL, Medline (Via PubMed), Scopus and Web of Science) from their inception to August 2023. Eligibility criteria were established using PICOS. Methodological quality was evaluated with the Downs and Black scale and the risk of bias with the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan software. Six studies were included in the systematic review and the meta-analysis. We observed significant differences in favour of VRBR for pain intensity (SMD = − 0.46; 95% CI = − 0.74, − 0.19; p = 0.001), disability (MD = − 2.84; 95% CI = − 4.23, − 1.45; p < 0.0001), global perceived effect (MD = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.25, 0.72; p < 0.0001) and patient satisfaction (MD = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.38, 0.86; p < 0.00001). However, at short-term follow-up significant differences were only obtained for disability (MD = − 3.52; 95% CI = − 5.85, − 1.20; p = 0.003). VRBR can significantly improve pain intensity, disability, global perceived effect and patient satisfaction. The small number of articles included in the analysis is a limitation, even considering the good methodological quality of these studies. Investigating the effects of VRBR on mid and long-term follow-up and exploring different types of VR are needed.
PROSPERO database, registration number ID: CRD42020222129.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Neck pain is one of the most frequent musculoskeletal disorders (Kazeminasab et al. 2022) with a high prevalence around the world (Kazeminasab et al. 2022; De Campos et al. 2018). Among all musculoskeletal disorders, neck pain is fourth in the most common worldwide (Verhagen et al. 2021). In 2017, the global prevalence was 288.7 million cases (Safiri et al. 2020). The origin of neck pain can be due to several causes. However, the cause is usually unknown and, in the absence of any identifiable cause, most of the people are diagnosed as having nonspecific neck pain (Blanpied et al. 2017; Farrell et al. 2019). There is a tendency for neck pain to become chronic (Kazeminasab et al. 2022). It is essential to find an appropriate treatment for this important health problem.
There are different therapeutic strategies for chronic neck pain treatment (Kazeminasab et al. 2022). Manual therapy, mobilisation and manipulation, laser therapy, acupuncture, dry needling and therapeutic exercise are some examples of non-pharmacological approaches to treat chronic neck pain (Kazeminasab et al. 2022; Blanpied et al. 2017). Clinical practice guidelines have supported a multimodal approach within a biopsychosocial framework where therapeutic exercise is an essential part of the therapeutic strategy (Blanpied et al. 2017; Bier et al. 2018). Different types of exercise have been recommended (Blanpied et al. 2017). According to Gross et al. (Gross et al. 2016), specific strengthening exercises combined with endurance or stretching exercises may be beneficial in reducing pain and improving functionality. However, other reviews (Blanpied et al. 2017; Parikh et al. 2019) and clinical practice guidelines (Bier et al. 2018) established that there is no agreement on what type of exercise is the most effective. Additionally, the effectiveness of rehabilitation depends on the level of adherence (Bailey et al. 2020). However, adherence is challenging, because therapeutic exercises are often considered monotonous and boring (Fang et al. 2020). Pain-related fear is a common behaviour in patients with chronic neck pain and it is associated with avoidance of physical exercise and consequently poor treatment adherence (Gava et al. 2022; Nijs et al. 2013). Moreover, treatments in patients with chronic pain must be followed lifelong (Navarro-Albarracin et al. 2018). Therefore, it is necessary to determine an effective intervention for this type of patients.
During the last decade, the use of new technologies, such as virtual reality (VR) has extended to clinical medicine (Li et al. 2017). Ivan Sutherland described VR as “a window through which a user perceives the virtual world as if looked, felt, sounded real and in which the user could act realistically” (Sutherland et al. 1965; Cipresso et al. 2018). In general, we can define VR as any device that provides stimuli on a monitor, such as video games consoles. The term VR is not confined to a particular hardware or software (Trost et al. 2015) and includes various technological devices and systems with different characteristics (Dominguez-Tellez et al. 2020). VR systems have been combined with computers, mobile applications and commercial devices (e.g. Nintendo Wii) (Pereira et al. 2020; De Miguel-Rubio et al. 2020). VR depends on the degree of immersion, that is, the feeling of “being present” in the virtual environment. It can be immersive, semi-immersive or non-immersive (Cipresso et al. 2018; Rutkowski et al. 2020). We can also distinguish between “specialized” VR (i.e. VR systems specifically developed for therapeutic purposes) and gaming VR (i.e. commercial VR-game consoles) (Rutkowski et al. 2020).
VR has been used in pain management in different populations (Smith et al. 2020; Kulkarni et al. 2020; Lauwens et al. 2020) and the results suggested its usefulness in treating pain-related problems. Effects have also been explored in physical rehabilitation (Dominguez-Tellez et al. 2020). VR based rehabilitation (VRBR) is a relatively recent approach (Corbetta et al. 2015) but it presents some advantages over the limitations of therapeutic exercise mentioned above. Among the proposed mechanisms, the first is distraction. VRBR is a powerful distraction technique as it directs the attention of the patient to an external stimulus rather than pain or body movement (Pereira et al. 2020). Therefore, VRBR can be beneficial to avoid some pain-related problems such as kinesiophobia and inactivity (Lopez-de-Uralde-Villanueva et al. 2016; Vlaeyen et al. 2012). The second mechanism is gamification, which is defined as “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Johnson et al. 2016; Pereira et al. 2020). Gaming VR incorporates motivational features such as feedback, interactive elements, goal-setting and prevents monotony and boredom. Patients are involved in their recovery in an active way, increase their motivation and improve adherence to treatment (Johnson et al. 2016; De Miguel-Rubio et al. 2020; Pereira et al. 2020). VR devices combined with other game development techniques allow manipulating the content duration, intensity and feedback to create an adequate exercise prescription (Dominguez-Tellez et al. 2020; Pereira et al. 2020). In addition, the repetitive elements are thought to be a key mechanism that promotes learning (Kato et al. 2010). Finally, VRBR enables patients to perform challenging exercises in a safe environment (Kwon et al. 2023). Patients gain confidence in their ability to exercise and increase their physical activity, which can alter the perception of pain in patients during rehabilitation (Kantha et al. 2023). Moreover, compared to conventional rehabilitation, VRBR is considered cost-effective (Li et al. 2017).
In the available evidence, we found several systematic reviews (Goudman et al. 2022; Grassini et al. 2022) exploring the effects of VRBR in chronic pain management. Goudman et al. (2022) reported significant pain relief and improvements in functioning. This shows that VRBR has applications beyond the treatment of acute pain. Two other systematic reviews (Gava et al. 2022; Kantha et al. 2023) investigated VRBR effects in chronic musculoskeletal pain, including chronic neck pain patients. VRBR demonstrated pain reduction in these patients (Kantha et al. 2023) and improved pain-related fear (Gava et al. 2022). In addition, VRBR helps patients maintain their motivation during rehabilitation. However, the findings on different types of immersion remain unclear (Kantha et al. 2023). About chronic neck pain, Gumaa et al. (2019) concluded that the effectiveness of VRBR is promising. However, Ahern et al. (2020) reported that statistically but not clinically significant effects of VRBR were found for chronic neck pain. Furthermore, they referred to the need for higher quality studies. Recently, Gavish et al. (2023) reported that VR software invokes movements that were identified as fit for neck rehabilitation, with no adverse events. Erdogan et al. (2023) developed a VR system that demonstrates benefits in adherence to treatment and in checking the correct performance of the exercises in neck pain patients. Guo et al. (2023) explored the VRBR effects in patients with neck pain. They concluded that evidence support VRBR as a beneficial nonpharmacological approach to reduce pain intensity in patients with neck pain, specially in chronic neck pain. However, the high heterogeneity of the studies included in Guo et al. (2023) limits their findings.
Considering the multiple consequences of chronic pain and its relevance to public health, performing a systematic review devoted to chronic neck pain patients is needed. Besides, a subgroup analysis based on VRBR interventions is necessary to know whether VRBR alone or combined with other interventions result in a different yield. Moreover, there is an absence of solid conclusions regarding the type of VR used; it would be interesting to investigate the effects of VR depending on the level of immersion so we considered all types of VR. Finally, it is relevant to analyse the effects in the short, mid and long term due to the nature of chronic pain.
Consequently, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was to analyse the effectiveness of VRBR in the treatment of chronic neck pain.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Design
This systematic review was carried out according to the guidelines of The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Page et al. 2021). We established the following PICO question: “Is VRBR effective in the treatment of adults with chronic neck pain compared with other interventions?” Therefore, we performed a systematic review in order to identify RCTs exploring the effects of VRBR for chronic neck pain treatment.
2.2 Search strategy
The search was conducted in four databases (CINAHL, Medline (Via PubMed), Scopus and Web of Science) from their inception to January 2022 without language restrictions. An updated search was also conducted on the 7th of August 2023. "Appendix 1" describes the full search strategy. In an attempt to find other relevant articles, we also reviewed the reference list of other reviews and related articles.
Additionally, we conducted a search for ongoing RCTs in three clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry). The search strategy used in each registry is described in "Appendix 2".
2.3 Study selection
The selection of studies was conducted systematically based on the prespecified PICOS criteria: Participants: adults (≥ 18 years) with chronic neck pain (12 weeks or more) (Furlan et al. 2015); Interventions: VRBR alone or combined with other interventions; Comparisons: no intervention, interventions without VRBR, standard treatment, usual care, or control; Outcomes: pain intensity and other outcomes related to pain; Study design: RCTs. Articles were excluded if they were non-peer-reviewed publications or considered as grey literature. Full texts in English, Spanish or French were included.
We used Mendeley Reference Manager (Mendeley Desktop, London, UK) in order to identify articles, check the duplicates and standardize the references. Two independent reviewers (BBG and ALG) performed the search, screened study titles and abstracts and assessed the full text of studies. Studies that did not meet inclusion criteria were excluded. We emailed corresponding author of the study if full text was not available. A third reviewer (ITS) was consulted in case of disagreements.
2.4 Data extraction
The following data were recorded from the included articles: References, country, disease, severity, sample size, age (years), gender (percentage of males), outcome measures, measuring instrument, time points assessment and quality (score obtained on the Downs and Black scale). Table 1 summarizes this information. Characteristics of interventions are shown in Table 2: References, interventions, session duration, frequency, program duration, supervision and adverse events.
Two independent reviewers (BBG and ALG) performed the data extraction. We emailed corresponding author of the study if information was insufficient or unclear. If information remained unavailable or if contact was not possible, it was analysed using the available data. A third reviewer (ITS) was consulted in case of disagreements.
2.5 Methodological quality
The methodological quality was evaluated with the Downs and Black quality assessment method (Downs et al. 1998). This scale consists of 27 items divided into 5 sections: study quality, external validity, study bias, confounding and selection bias and study power. We used the modified Downs and Black scale. The score range is 0–28. Higher values indicate a better methodological quality (Torres-Sanchez et al. 2019; Silverman et al. 2012). Studies can be categorized according to the following cut points as excellent (26–28), good (20–25), fair (15–19) and poor (≤ 14) (Silverman et al. 2012; Hooper et al. 2008).
2.6 Risk of bias
The risk of bias was assessed with the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB-2) (Higgins et al. 2019). The tool is structured into five domains through which bias might be introduced into the result: bias arising from the randomisation process, due to deviations from the intended interventions, to missing outcome data, in the measurement of the outcome, and in the selection of the reported result. The different domains were scored as, “low risk of bias”, “some concerns” or “high risk of bias”.
Two independent reviewers (BBG and ALG) performed the assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias. If needed, discrepancies were resolved with a third reviewer (ITS).
2.7 Review registry
This systematic review is registered at The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with number CRD42020222129. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=222129.
2.8 Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4. The analysis was performed for those outcomes repeated at least in two studies. Forest plots were used to visualize effect estimates and confidence intervals. Mean, standard deviation (SD) and sample size were extracted from included studies to estimate the overall effect. For continuous variables, results were expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) when the variables were measured with the same instrument; and as standardized mean difference (SMD) when the instrument was different. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was adjusted to a scale of 0–100 mm when it was expressed in centimetres. The 11-NRS also was adjusted to a scale of 0–100 points. We used inverse variance and random effects model (Deeks et al. 2022). A value of p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. We evaluated the heterogeneity between studies with the I2 test. Depending on the percentage obtained in I2 test, heterogeneity could be classified as low (I2 < 25%), moderate (I2 = 25–75%), and high (I2 > 75%). We performed a subgroup analysis to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results. Subgroups were chosen based on VRBR interventions (VRBR applied alone or combined with other interventions), the type of no VRBR intervention, the type of VR (immersive, semi-immersive or non-immersive) and follow-up (short, mid or long-term follow-up). In addition, if 10 or more studies were available, we planned to use funnel plots with pseudo 95% confidence limits in order to inspect potential publication bias (Higgins et al. 2011). We emailed corresponding authors when data were unavailable to obtain clarifications.
3 Results
3.1 Search selection
546 manuscripts were identified. After checking for duplicates, we obtained 299 potentially eligible records. Studies were screened by title and abstract and 23 studies remained. We evaluated the full text of them and 6 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. “Appendix 3” describes the excluded studies in the last screening with their reasons. Regarding ongoing RCTs, we found 31 potentially relevant registry entries. After screening, 10 ongoing RCTs were chosen. The study selection process is represented in the PRISMA flow diagram shown in Fig. 1. Ongoing RCTs are presented in “Appendix 4”.
3.2 Characteristics of the studies
All included studies are RCTs and appear in tables chronologically from oldest to newest. The studies were published between 2015 and 2022 (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020; Nusser et al. 2021; Cetin et al. 2022). The characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1.
Two studies were carried out in Australia (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018), and one in Iran (Rezaei et al. 2019), Spain (Tejera et al. 2020), Germany (Nusser et al. 2021) and Turkey (Cetin et al. 2022). All participants suffered from chronic neck pain as we defined as an inclusion criterion on Sect. 2.3. Two studies (Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020) specified that pain was nonspecific and one study that pain was non-traumatic (Nusser et al. 2021). Four studies (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Cetin et al. 2022) established severity criteria. 299 participants were studied. The sample sizes range from 32 to 90. The mean age of participants ranges from 26.26 to 53.1 years and the percentage of males ranges from 23 to 57.1%. All studies measured neck pain intensity (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020; Nusser et al. 2021; Cetin et al. 2022) and five studies measured disability associated with neck pain (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020; Nusser et al. 2021). In reference to neck pain intensity, the 11-points Numerical Rating Scale (11-NRS) (Nusser et al. 2021) and the VAS (0–100 mm or 0–10 cm) (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020; Cetin et al. 2022) were used as measurement tools. To assess disability, all studies used the Neck Pain Disability Index (NDI) (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020; Nusser et al. 2021). Kinesiophobia was measured in two studies with the 17-items Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (17-TSK) (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018). Other study used the 11-items TSK (Tejera et al. 2020). Two studies assessed cervical kinematics [range of motion (ROM), peak velocity, mean velocity, time to peak velocity percentage (TTP%)] with the VRBR device used in each study (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018). Other three studies only measured ROM (Tejera et al. 2020; Nusser et al. 2021; Cetin et al. 2022). Global Perceived Effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction were measured in two studies using an 11-points scale (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018). Two studies assessed the pain pressure threshold (PPT) with an algometer (Tejera et al. 2020; Cetin et al. 2022).
The outcomes were assessed pre- and postintervention in all studies (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020; Nusser et al. 2021; Cetin et al. 2022). Follow-up was carried out in four studies, two at three months (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018) and one at 5 weeks (Rezaei et al. 2019); another study included follow-up at one month and at three months (Tejera et al. 2020). Besides, one of these studies included a second recruitment after four weeks (Bahat et al. 2018).
3.3 Characteristics of the interventions
Table 2 describes the characteristics of the interventions of the included articles.
All interventions were VRBR training, in which head-mounted displays, VR glasses and specifically designed video games or software were used (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020; Nusser et al. 2021; Cetin et al. 2022). The patient controlled (via head movements) a virtual avatar that had to achieve various objectives towards a therapeutic purpose (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019). In other cases, there was not a virtual avatar, but the movements of the head of the patient still interacted with the virtual environment producing changes (Tejera et al. 2020; Nusser et al. 2021; Cetin et al. 2022).
In Bahat et al. (2015) VRBR was combined with kinematic training (KT) (laser pointer + poster) and compared with KT alone. Cetin et al. (2022) performed a similar comparison with motor control exercises. Bahat et al. (2018) included three different groups, so VRBR was compared with KT and with a control group that did not receive intervention. Nusser et al. (2021) also included three groups and combined VRBR with a standard rehabilitation programme (SRP). They compared VRBR + SRP with a control group that performed SRP alone; and on the other hand, they compared VRBR + SRP with sensorimotor training + SRP. In the studies carried out by Rezaei et al. (2019) and Tejera et al. (2020) VRBR was compared with conventional proprioceptive training and cervical mobility exercises, respectively.
The time of use of VRBR during session ranges from 16 to 20 min and the session duration lasted from 20 to 40 min. The frequency of the sessions varied from 1 session (Bahat et al. 2015) to 4 sessions per week (Bahat et al. 2018). Program duration varied from 3 weeks (Nusser et al. 2021) to 6 weeks (Cetin et al. 2022). In four studies, a physiotherapist supervised the interventions (Bahat et al. 2015; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020; Cetin et al. 2022). In another one, a physiotherapist, a sports scientist or a scientific assistant supervised the interventions (Nusser et al. 2021). In Bahat et al. (2018), the physiotherapist contacted the patients weekly in a non-face-to-face way. In reference to side effects, two studies (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018) reported adverse effects related to VRBR. Other three studies (Rezaei et al. 2019; Nusser et al. 2021; Cetin et al. 2022) did not report side effects, but in one of them patients complained about unpleasant sensations with the weight of the helmet (Nusser et al. 2021). In one article, no information about this issue was included (Tejera et al. 2020).
3.4 Methodological quality
The methodological quality was assessed with the Downs and Black quality assessment method (Downs et al. 1998). The score of each item is shown in “Appendix 5”. Five studies (Bahat et al. 2015; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020; Nusser et al. 2021; Cetin et al. 2022) were evaluated as good (20–25) and one (Bahat et al. 2018) was evaluated as fair (19–15).
3.5 Risk of bias
We used RoB-2 to assess the risk of bias of the included studies (Higgins et al. 2019). Figures 2 and 3 present the summary and the graph of the risk of bias assessment, respectively. The ROB-2 overall score reported that three studies were assessed as “high risk of bias” (Bahat et al. 2015; Nusser et al. 2021; Cetin et al. 2022) and two studies were assessed as “low risk of bias” (Bahat et al. 2018; Tejera et al. 2020). One was assessed as “some concerns” (Rezaei et al. 2019).
3.6 Effects of VRBR versus No VRBR in chronic neck pain
To perform the meta-analysis, we considered all outcomes repeated in two or more articles. We analysed the effects of VRBR versus no VRBR for six outcomes. The six included articles in the systematic review were included in the meta-analysis.
VRBR was compared with interventions without VRBR. We found two types of intervention without VRBR among studies, rehabilitation and control intervention. In order to clarify meta-analysis and draw solid conclusions it was divided in two parts: effects of VRBR vs rehabilitation in chronic neck pain; and effects of VRBR vs control intervention in chronic neck pain.
3.6.1 Effects of VRBR versus rehabilitation in chronic neck pain
All of the studies evaluated pain intensity (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020; Nusser et al. 2021; Cetin et al. 2022) and five evaluated disability (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020; Nusser et al. 2021). For kinesiophobia, three articles were included (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Tejera et al. 2020). For cervical kinematics, two articles were included (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018) for all parameters and other two only were considered for ROM (Nusser et al. 2021; Cetin et al. 2022). Tejera et al. (2020) was not included in the meta-analysis for ROM because data was not comparable. Two articles were included for global perceived effect and patient satisfaction (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018).
In order to explore the heterogeneity a subgroup analysis was performed:
First, we conducted a subgroup analysis based on VRBR interventions in order to figure out if VR applied alone obtained different effects compared with VR combined with a physiotherapy treatment.
Second, a subgroup analysis based on no VRBR interventions was performed. In this case, no VRBR interventions were rehabilitation interventions. These subgroups could only be performed for pain intensity and disability. We could not conduct a subgroup analysis based on the type of VR since all included studies used immersive VR, except Rezaei et al. (2019). It was also not possible to perform subgroups based on follow-up because the studies only included short-term follow-up (< 3 months).
Therefore, we analysed the effects of VRBR versus rehabilitation at short-term follow-up for pain intensity, disability, kinesiophobia, cervical kinematics and global perceived effect. We included four articles in pain intensity and disability analysis (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020) and three studies in kinesiophobia analysis (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Tejera et al. 2020). We included two studies in cervical kinematic analysis and global perceived effect analysis at short-term follow-up (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018). We did not carry out meta-analysis for patient satisfaction at short-term follow-up because data was missing in one article (Bahat et al. 2015).
For cervical kinematics, subgroups were based on the different parameters and for global perceived effect and patient satisfaction, subgroup analysis was not performed. The VAS to evaluate pain intensity was adjusted to a scale of 0–100 mm when it was expressed in centimetres. The 11-NRS also was adjusted to a scale of 0–100 points.
3.6.1.1 Pain intensity
Six studies evaluated pain intensity; five studies used VAS (0–100 mm) (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020; Cetin et al. 2022) and other study used 11-NRS (Nusser et al. 2021). In Fig. 4a, we observed that VRBR turned out to be statistically more effective than rehabilitation for pain intensity (SMD = − 0.46; 95% CI = − 0.74, − 0.19; p = 0.001). According to the I2 statistic, 12% of variation across studies was due to heterogeneity (p = 0.34).
Regarding subgroup analysis based on VRBR interventions, no significant differences were found between VRBR and rehabilitation when VRBR was applied alone (SMD = − 0.46; 95% CI = − 0.93, 0.02; p = 0.06). According to the I2 statistic, 50% of variation across studies was due to heterogeneity (p = 0.14). However, the results showed significant differences in favour of VRBR when it was combined with other intervention versus rehabilitation (SMD = − 0.50; 95% CI = − 0.91, − 0.09; p = 0.02). Heterogeneity was not significant (I2 = 0%; p = 0.44) (Fig. 4b). In subgroup analysis based on rehabilitation interventions (Fig. 4c), there were no significant differences between VRBR and KT (SMD = − 0.22; 95% CI = − 0.63, 0.20; p = 0.31). Heterogeneity was not significant (I2 = 0%; p = 0.95). However, we observed significant differences in favour of VRBR when it was compared with therapeutic exercise (SMD = − 0.61; 95% CI = − 0.97, − 0.25; p = 0.0009). According to the I2 statistic, 17% of variation across studies was due to heterogeneity (p = 0.31).
Four studies evaluated pain intensity at short-term follow-up using VAS (0–100 mm) (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020). As shown in Fig. 4d, no significant differences (MD = − 6.12; 95% CI = − 12.74, 0.49; p = 0.07) were found between VRBR and rehabilitation in pain intensity at short term follow-up. According to the I2 statistic, 41% of variation across studies was due to heterogeneity (p = 0.16).
3.6.1.2 Disability
Five studies evaluated disability using NDI (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020; Nusser et al. 2021). In Fig. 5a, we observed that VRBR turned out to be statistically more effective than rehabilitation for disability (MD = − 2.84; 95% CI = − 4.23, − 1.45; p < 0.0001). Heterogeneity was not significant (I2 = 0%; p = 0.59).
Regarding subgroup analysis based on VRBR interventions, we observed significant differences in favour of VRBR versus rehabilitation when VRBR was applied alone (MD = − 2.79; 95% CI = − 4.67, − 0.91; p = 0.004). According to the I2 statistic, 16% of variation across studies was due to heterogeneity (p = 0.30). However, no significant differences were found between VRBR and rehabilitation when VRBR was combined with other intervention (MD = − 1.78; 95% CI = − 5.67, 2.11; p = 0.37). Heterogeneity was not significant (I2 = 0%; p = 0.77) (Fig. 5b). In subgroup analysis based on rehabilitation interventions (Fig. 5c), no significant differences were found between VRBR and KT (MD = − 1.88; 95% CI = − 6.46, 2.70; p = 0.42). Heterogeneity was not significant (I2 = 0%; p = 0.68). However, the results showed significant differences in favour of VRBR when it was compared with therapeutic exercise (MD = − 2.72; 95% CI = − 4.54, − 0.89; p = 0.004). According to the I2 statistic, 18% of variation across studies was due to heterogeneity (p = 0.30).
Four studies evaluated disability at short-term follow-up using NDI (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020). For disability at short-term follow-up (Fig. 5b), we obtained significant differences in favour of VRBR when we compared with rehabilitation (MD = − 3.52; 95% CI = − 5.85, − 1.20; p = 0.003). According to the I2 statistic, 26% of variation across studies was due to heterogeneity (p = 0.26).
3.6.1.3 Kinesiophobia
Three studies evaluated kinesiophobia; two studies used 17-TSK (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018) and other study used 11-items TSK (Tejera et al. 2020). For kinesiophobia (Fig. 6a), no significant differences (SMD = − 0.18; 95% CI = − 0.52, 0.17; p = 0.31) were found between VRBR and rehabilitation. Heterogeneity was not significant (I2 = 0%; p = 0.96).
Three studies evaluated kinesiophobia at short-term follow-up; two studies used 17-TSK (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018) and other study used 11-items TSK (Tejera et al. 2020). For kinesiophobia at short term follow-up (Fig. 6b), there were no significant differences between VRBR and rehabilitation (SMD = − 0.29; 95% CI = − 0.73, 0.15; p = 0.19). According to the I2 statistic, 42% of variation across studies was due to heterogeneity (p = 0.18).
3.6.1.4 Cervical kinematics
Four studies evaluated ROM; two used a VR device (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018) and two used a ROM device (Nusser et al. 2021; Cetin et al. 2022). The rest of cervical kinematic parameters were evaluated in two studies with a different VR device (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018). Regarding cervical kinematics parameters (Fig. 7), no significant differences were found for ROM (SMD = 0.18; 95% CI = − 0.03, 0.38; p = 0.09), peak velocity (SMD = 0.03; 95% CI = − 0.18, 0.24; p = 0.76), mean velocity (SMD = 0.03; 95% CI = − 0.18, 0.24; p = 0.76) or TTP% (SMD = 0.05; 95% CI = − 0.31, 0.41; p = 0.78).
Two studies evaluated cervical kinematic parameters at short-term follow-up with a different VR device (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018). Regarding cervical kinematics parameters at short-term follow-up (Fig. 8), no significant differences were found for peak velocity (SMD = 0.03; 95% CI = − 0.20, 0.26; p = 0.78), mean velocity (SMD = − 0.03; 95% CI = − 0.30, 0.24; p = 0.82) or TTP% (SMD = − 0.17; 95% CI = − 0.51, 0.16; p = 0.31). However, there were statistically significant differences in favour of rehabilitation for ROM (SMD = − 0.42; 95% CI = − 0.65, − 0.19; p = 0.0003). In addition, subgroup analysis showed significant differences in favour of rehabilitation for ROM flexion (SMD = − 0.67; 95% CI = − 1.08, − 0.25; p = 0.002) and ROM right rotation (SMD = − 0.64; 95% CI = − 1.02, − 0.25; p = 0.001).
3.6.1.5 Global perceived effect
Two studies evaluated global perceived effect with 11-points scale (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018). The results in Fig. 9a showed significant differences (MD = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.25, 0.72; p < 0.0001) in favour of VRBR in global perceived effect when we compared with rehabilitation. Heterogeneity was not significant (I2 = 0%; p = 0.86). However, no significant differences (MD = 1.22; 95% CI = − 0.40, 2.83; p = 0.14) were found at short-term follow-up (Fig. 9b). Heterogeneity between studies was high (I2 = 93%; p = 0.0002).
3.6.1.6 Patient satisfaction
Two studies evaluated patient satisfaction with 11-points scale (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018). In Fig. 10, we observed that significant differences (MD = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.38, 0.86; p < 0.00001) in favour of VRBR were found in patient satisfaction when we compared with rehabilitation. Heterogeneity was not significant (I2 = 0%; p = 0.57).
3.6.2 Effects of VRBR versus control intervention in chronic neck pain
Two studies included a control group (Bahat et al. 2018; Nusser et al. 2021). We could not perform subgroup analysis due to the lack of studies that analysed this comparison. We analysed the effects of VRBR versus control group for pain intensity, disability and ROM.
3.6.2.1 Pain intensity
Two studies evaluated pain intensity; one used VAS (0–100 mm) (Bahat et al. 2018) and the other one used 11-NRS (Nusser et al. 2021). In Fig. 11, no significant differences (SMD = -0.38; 95% CI = − 0.79, 0.02; p = 0.06) were found between VRBR and control intervention for pain intensity. Heterogeneity was not significant (I2 = 0%; p = 0.89).
3.6.2.2 Disability
Two studies evaluated disability with NDI (Bahat et al. 2018; Nusser et al. 2021). In Fig. 12, no significant differences (MD = − 1.52; 95% CI = − 5.49, 2.45; p = 0.45) were found between VRBR and control intervention for disability. Heterogeneity was not significant (I2 = 0%; p = 0.57).
3.6.2.3 Cervical kinematics
Two studies evaluated ROM; one used a VR device (Bahat et al. 2018) and the other one used a ROM device (Nusser et al. 2021). In Fig. 13, no significant differences (SMD = − 0.13; 95% CI = − 0.38, 0.12; p = 0.33) were found between VRBR and control intervention for ROM. According to the I2 statistic, 33% of variation across studies was due to heterogeneity (p = 0.17). Subgroup analysis did not show significant differences.
3.7 Interpretation of the results
Regarding the magnitude of effects and the interpretation of the effects of VRBR versus rehabilitation postintervention we can consider that:
Pain intensity improved around 1,7% in the VRBR group compared to the rehabilitation group considering a relative error of 1,1% (obtained from 95% CI).
Disability improved around 22% in the VRBR group compared to the rehabilitation group considering a relative error of 11% (obtained from 95% CI).
Global perceived effect improved around 25% in the VRBR group compared to the rehabilitation group considering a relative error of 12% (obtained from 95% CI).
Patient satisfaction improved around 22% in the VRBR group compared to the rehabilitation group considering a relative error of 8% (obtained from 95% CI).
Only the significant results of the outcomes have been detailed in this summary.
3.8 Publication bias
Finally, publication bias assessment was not performed because it is not recommended for fewer than 10 articles (Higgins et al. 2011) and we were only able to include 6 articles.
4 Discussion
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to analyse the effectiveness of VRBR in adults with chronic neck pain. Significant differences in favour of VRBR were found for pain intensity, disability, global perceived effect and patient satisfaction when it was compared with rehabilitation. No significant differences were found for kinesiophobia and cervical kinematics. At short-term follow-up we only found significant differences in favour of VRBR for disability. However, the results showed significant differences in favour of rehabilitation for ROM at short-term follow-up. When VRBR was compared with a control intervention no significant differences were found. It should be noted that only two studies were included in this meta-analysis.
Meta-analysis showed a significant improvement in favour of VRBR in pain intensity and disability. We observed that VRBR turned out to be statistically more effective than rehabilitation in both outcomes. In addition, significant differences were shown in favour of VRBR when compared with therapeutic exercise. No significant differences were observed when compared with KT. However, it should be considered that in this subgroup only two studies were included and in one study (Bahat et al. 2015) VRBR group also used KT and had a limited time of VR training. It should be noted that some studies had a small sample size (Bahat et al. 2015; Nusser et al. 2021), and a high dropout rate (Bahat et al. 2015; Cetin 2022). Regarding VRBR interventions, we observed conflicting results when VRBR was applied alone or combined with other intervention. VRBR combined with other intervention was superior to rehabilitation for pain intensity but not for disability. On the other hand, VRBR applied alone was superior to rehabilitation for disability but not for pain intensity. In addition, interventions combined with VRBR were heterogeneous.
For pain intensity, no significant differences were found at short-term follow-up. However, we found significant differences in favour of VRBR for disability. Some limitations shall be considered. For instance, Bahat et al. (2015) included the same home exercise programme for both groups in the postintervention period. This could explain the lack of significant differences found at short-term follow-up for pain intensity. Significant differences were not found between VRBR and rehabilitation for kinesiophobia. It was not found in the short-term follow-up, either. It should be noted that only three articles were included in each meta-analysis. However, a recent systematic review (Wang et al. 2022) concluded that VRBR technology has the potential to reduce kinesiophobia. They also reported that non-immersive VRBR and VRBR combined with exercise were effective. In our meta-analysis, none of the articles used non-immersive VR and only one (Bahat et al. 2015) combined VR with other intervention (KT).
In general, no significant differences were found in favour of VRBR for cervical kinematics parameters. It was not found in the short-term follow-up, either. Even considering that the included studies (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018) used the same VR system to assess and treat the patients (which might have been an advantage for the VRBR group), significant differences were found in favour of rehabilitation for ROM at short-term follow-up. The results could be explained because only two studies were included.
Only two articles were included in global perceived effect and patient satisfaction meta-analysis (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018). The results showed significant differences in favour of VRBR versus rehabilitation in global perceived effect and patient satisfaction. However, significant differences were not found at short-term follow-up for global perceived effect. The interventions were supervised or performed at home. These differences could influence these variables. Garcia et al. (2021) performed an 8-week self-administered at-home behavioral skills-based VR program for chronic low back pain (CLBP). They found significant differences in favour of VRBR in global perceived effect and patient satisfaction although the intervention was performed at home without supervision. Regarding the follow-up, we only observed significant differences in favour of VRBR in Bahat et al. (2015) and that could be explained because participants performed a non-supervised home exercise programme in the postintervention period.
Immersive VR was the most used among the studies. Only one study used non-immersive VR (Rezaei et al. 2019). For this reason, we could not analyse the effects of VRBR depending on the type of VR. Therefore, although immersive VR is more common to treat patients with chronic neck pain, the evidence on which type of VR is more effective remains unclear.
4.1 VRBR in other populations
In a previous systematic review, we explored VRBR effects in CLBP (Brea-Gomez et al. 2021). We found significant differences in favour of VRBR in pain intensity and kinesiophobia postintervention and at six months follow-up. These results differ partially from the current review. Significant differences were obtained in favour of VRBR in pain intensity but not in kinesiophobia nor in the follow-up despite it being shorter (short-term follow-up vs mid-term follow-up). It should be noted that the interventions in the CLBP studies lasted longer (4 to 12 weeks), in some cases twice or trice as long, than in the chronic neck pain studies (3 to 6 weeks). Results for disability are also different. In the current review, the meta-analysis showed significant differences in favour of VRBR in disability, also at short-term follow-up, but for CLBP no significant differences were found. It should be considered that the pathology was not the same and the type of VR as well as the devices used in each case were different. Most chronic neck pain studies used immersive VR with head-mounted displays or glasses and CLBP studies used semi-immersive or non-immersive VR with systems such as Nintendo consoles or horse-riding simulators. In addition, there are differences in clinical profiles.
VRBR effects have been explored in acute conditions too. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs (Baradwan et al. 2022) concluded that VRBR is an effective technique for improving pain management during normal labour. All included articles compared VRBR to no intervention or placebo. These results differ from ours since we did not obtain significant differences in that comparison although it was expected. Nevertheless, it should be taken into account that the type of pain and its origin differ between studies. In addition, we only included one article that compared VRBR with no intervention.
Asadzadeh et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review to evaluate VRBR effectiveness in rehabilitation. They provided evidence that show VRBR interventions had a positive impact on rehabilitation objectives and outcomes. These results coincide partially with our review. This review supports good results obtained in chronic neck pain and demonstrates that the findings we obtained are similar in other types of pathologies and in the context of rehabilitation.
4.2 Discussion with other reviews
The effectiveness of VRBR for chronic neck pain has been studied in two systematic reviews. Gumaa et al. (2019) explored VRBR effects in orthopaedic rehabilitation. They only included two articles with chronic neck pain patients (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018). These articles provided evidence of improved cervical flexion range, movement velocity and accuracy with VRBR in comparison with KT and/or no-treatment control (Gumaa et al. 2019). However, the number of included articles is limited, and we can add new information about this issue.
Ahern et al. (2020) investigated the effects of VRBR in chronic neck pain. On the one hand, the meta-analysis did not show significant differences in pain intensity and disability. These results differ from ours since we found significant differences in favour of VRBR for these variables. In addition, we found significant differences at short-term follow-up for disability. It could be explained because we included a greater number of articles. Besides, the meta-analysis was performed differently in each review, for example, we added subgroups and divided meta-analysis depending on the intervention that was used to compare with VRBR, in order to analyse as many comparisons included in the studies as possible. On the other hand, we can observe that other results coincide with ours. No significant differences were found in pain intensity at short-term follow-up, kinesiophobia postintervention or kinesiophobia at short-term follow-up. This may be due to meta-analysis are quite similar. Meta-analysis in both reviews obtained the same results for global perceived effect and patient satisfaction postintervention and for global perceived effect at short-term follow-up because they were conducted in the same way.
Recently, Guo et al. (2023) carried out a systematic review to study the effects of VRBR in neck pain patients. Our systematic review is performed specifically in chronic neck pain patients. Our results are partially in line with those found by Guo et al. (2023). They found significant differences in favour of VRBR for pain intensity and disability in neck pain patients. However, at short-term follow-up no significant differences were found while we also observed significant differences in favour of VRBR for disability. In addition, they found that VRBR significantly decreased pain intensity in patients with chronic neck pain. This is consistent with our findings. We also obtained a significant improvement in global perceived effect and patient satisfaction. They also found significant differences for kinesiophobia and cervical kinematic parameters. We did not encounter significant differences in those outcomes so these findings differ from ours.
The number of included studies should be considered since we only considered chronic pain studies. They reported advantages to multimodal intervention. However, regarding our results, evidence is inconclusive in chronic neck pain patients.
4.3 Strengths and limitations
Strengths: We use the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al. 2021) and PICOS strategy. Meta-analysis provides important information about the effectiveness of VRBR specifically in chronic neck pain patients including a subgroup analysis in order to clarify different issues about these interventions. Methodological quality was evaluated with one of the top six quality scales (Downs et al. 1998). Most studies scored good quality. The RoB-2 (Higgins et al. 2019) was used to assess risk of bias. We registered the protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020222129).
Limitations: Although the six studies (Bahat et al. 2015, 2018; Rezaei et al. 2019; Tejera et al. 2020; Nusser et al. 2021; Cetin et al. 2022) included participants with chronic neck pain, the origin and characteristics were different between some of them, and this could have an impact on the results. In addition, interventions were heterogeneous and making subgroups was complicated. Additionally, in most studies the sample size was relatively small and none of studies included mid-term or long-term assessment. Another limitation was the low number of included studies. In fact, publication bias was not assessed because of too few included studies. Last, the interpretation of this meta-analysis must be cautious because three studies obtained a high risk of bias. The main problems were deviations from intended interventions and measurement of the outcome. Patients could not be blinded in any study.
Initially, a general spinal pain systematic review was proposed. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies (neck pain, low back pain…) we decided to divide the review to extract the most relevant information and draw conclusions for each pathology specifically. In this case, most studies focused on CLBP on the one hand and chronic neck pain on the other hand. We have already published a specific review on CLBP (Brea-Gómez et al. 2021). In the current review, we present specific data on chronic neck pain.
4.4 Clinical implications and future research
VRBR could be used in clinical practice in order to improve pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic neck pain. Effects are maintained at short-term follow-up for disability. The evidence of VRBR in mid-term and in long-term follow-up has not been studied yet so future research should explore effects of VRBR in both time-point assessments. Regarding the type of VR used in these interventions, all the included studies, except Rezaei et al. (2019), used immersive VR with favourable results. These VR devices, such as VR glasses, are commercially available. However, subgroup analysis based on the type of VR could not be performed so the evidence about different types of VR remains unclear. In addition, half of the studies reported adverse effects or unpleasant sensations produced by the VR device. It would be necessary to investigate the adverse effects as well as different types of VR. There are conflicting results on whether VRBR should be applied alone or combined with other intervention. The evidence seems to indicate better effects when VRBR is combined with other intervention, though the results are not conclusive. More research on VRBR interventions is needed.
5 Conclusions
In conclusion, the available evidence has demonstrated that VRBR can significantly improve pain intensity and disability associated with chronic neck pain. In addition, patients in VRBR group show a greater global perceived effect and satisfaction with the treatment. These results are maintained at short-term follow-up for disability. However, no significant differences were obtained for kinesiophobia. Regarding cervical kinematic parameters, the evidence remains limited since no significant differences were found. Nevertheless, few significant differences were found in favour of rehabilitation at short-term follow-up. There seems to be a need to investigate VRBR effects in mid-term and long-term follow-up due to the lack of information on this topic in published studies. Most of the included studies have a good methodological quality, but we only included six, so it would be necessary to carry out more studies with a similar or better quality. Finally, it is essential to explore the different VR systems with the purpose of reducing side effects as much as possible.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Ahern MM, Dean LV, Stoddard CC, Agrawal A, Kim K, Cook CE, Narciso Garcia A (2020) The Effectiveness of virtual reality in patients with spinal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Pract 20:656–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.12885
Asadzadeh A, Samad-Soltani T, Salahzadeh Z, Rezaei-Hachesu P (2021) Effectiveness of virtual reality-based exercise therapy in rehabilitation: a scoping review. Inform Med Unlocked 24:100562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2021.100562
Bahat HS, Takasaki H, Chen X, Bet-Or Y, Treleaven J (2015) Cervical kinematic training with and without interactive VR training for chronic neck pain - a randomized clinical trial. Man Ther 20:68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2014.06.008
Bahat HS, Croft K, Carter C, Hoddinott A, Sprecher E, Treleaven J (2018) Remote kinematic training for patients with chronic neck pain: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J 27:1309–1323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5323-0
Bailey DL, Holden MA, Foster NE, Quicke JG, Haywood KL, Bishop A (2020) Defining adherence to therapeutic exercise for musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 54:326–331. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098742
Baradwan S, Khadawardi K, Badghish E, Alkhamis WH, Dahi AA, Abdallah KM, Kamel M, Sayd ZS, Mohamed MA, Ali HM, Elhalim AEMA, Mahmoud M, Mohamed AA, Mohamed DF, Shama AAA, Hagras AM, Ali HAA, Abdelhakim AM, Saleh M, Badawy MA, Bakry MS (2022) The impact of virtual reality on pain management during normal labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sex Reprod Healthc 32:100720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2022.100720
Bier JD, Scholten-Peeters WGM, Staal JB, Pool J, van Tulder MW, Beekman E, Knoop J, Meerhoff G, Verhagen AP (2018) Clinical practice guideline for physical therapy assessment and treatment in patients with nonspecific neck pain. Phys Ther 98:162–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzx118
Blanpied PR, Gross AR, Elliott JM, Devaney LL, Clewley D, Walton DM, Sparks C, Robertson EK (2017) Neck pain: revision 2017. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 47:A1–A83. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2017.0302
Brea-Gómez B, Torres-Sánchez I, Ortiz-Rubio A, Calvache-Mateo A, Cabrera-Martos I, López-López L, Valenza MC (2021) Virtual reality in the treatment of adults with chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18:11806. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182211806
Cetin H, Kose N, Oge HK (2022) Virtual reality and motor control exercises to treat chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 62:102636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2022.102636
Cipresso P, Giglioli IAC, Raya MA, Riva G (2018) The past, present, and future of virtual and augmented reality research: a network and cluster analysis of the literature. Front Psychol 9:2086. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02086
Corbetta D, Imeri F, Gatti R (2015) Rehabilitation that incorporates virtual reality is more effective than standard rehabilitation for improving walking speed, balance and mobility after stroke: a systematic review. J Physiother 61:117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2015.05.017
De Campos TF, Maher CG, Steffens D, Fuller JT, Hancock MJ (2018) Exercise programs may be effective in preventing a new episode of neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Physiother 64:159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2018.05.003
Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG (2022) Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (ed) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3 [updated February 2022]. The Cochrane Collaboration. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
De Miguel-Rubio A, Rubio MD, Alba-Rueda A, Salazar A, Moral-Munoz JA, Lucena-Anton D (2020) Virtual reality systems for upper limb motor function recovery in patients with spinal cord injury: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 8:e22537. https://doi.org/10.2196/22537
Domínguez-Téllez P, Moral-Muñoz JA, Salazar A, Casado-Fernández E, Lucena-Antón D (2020) Game-based virtual reality interventions to improve upper limb motor function and quality of life after stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. Games Health J 9:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2019.0043
Downs SH, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52:377–384. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377
Erdoğan K, Ceylan R, Albayrak Gezer İ (2023) The use of augmented reality in the teaching and training of basic exercises involved in the non-surgical treatment of neck pain. Virtual Reality 27:481–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-022-00739-y
Fang Q, Ghanouni P, Anderson SE, Touchett H, Shirley R, Fang F, Fang C (2020) Effects of exergaming on balance of healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Games Health J 9:11–23. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2019.0016
Farrell SF, Smith AD, Hancock MJ, Webb AL, Sterling M (2019) Cervical spine findings on MRI in people with neck pain compared with pain-free controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 49:1638–1654. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26567
Furlan AD, Malmivaara A, Chou R, Maher CG, Deyo RA, Schoene M, Bronfort G, van Tulder MW, Editorial Board of the Cochrane Back, Neck Group (2015) Updated method guideline for systematic reviews in the cochrane back and neck group. Spine (phila Pa 1976) 40:1660–1673. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001061
Garcia LM, Birckhead BJ, Krishnamurthy P, Sackman J, Mackey IG, Louis RG, Salmasi V, Maddox T, Darnall BD (2021) An 8-week self-administered at-home behavioral skills-based virtual reality program for chronic low back pain: double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted during COVID-19. J Med Internet Res 23:e26292. https://doi.org/10.2196/26292
Gava V, Fialho HRF, Calixtre LB, Barbosa GM, Kamonseki DH (2022) Effects of gaming on pain-related fear, pain catastrophizing, anxiety, and depression in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Games Health J. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2021.0232
Gavish L, Weissberger O, Barzilay Y (2023) Gamification of cervical spine physiotherapy by virtual reality software: is this real rehabilitation? Games Health J. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2023.0036
Goudman L, Jansen J, Billot M, Vets N, De Smedt A, Roulaud M, Rigoard P, Moens M (2022) Virtual reality applications in chronic pain management: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Serious Games 10:e34402. https://doi.org/10.2196/34402
Grassini S (2022) Virtual reality assisted non-pharmacological treatments in chronic pain management: a systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19:4071. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074071
Gross AR, Paquin JP, Dupont G, Blanchette S, Lalonde P, Cristie T, Graham N, Kay TM, Burnie SJ, Gelley G, Goldsmith CH, Forget M, Santaguida PL, Yee AJ, Radisic GG, Hoving JL, Bronfort G, Cervical Overview Group (2016) Exercises for mechanical neck disorders: a cochrane review update. Man Ther 24:25–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2016.04.005
Guo Q, Zhang L, Gui C, Chen G, Chen Y, Tan H, Su W, Zhang R, Gao Q (2023) Virtual reality intervention for patients with neck pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Med Internet Res 25:e38256. https://doi.org/10.2196/38256
Gumaa M, Rehan Youssef A (2019) Is Virtual reality effective in orthopedic rehabilitation? a systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther 99:1304–1325. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzz093
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. https://www.cochrane-handbook.org
Higgins JP, Savović J, Page MJ, Sterne JAC (2019) Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) Full Guidance Document. Br Med J 1–72
Hooper P, Jutai JW, Strong G, Russell-Minda E (2008) Age-related macular degeneration and low-vision rehabilitation: a systematic review. Can J Ophthalmol 43:180–187. https://doi.org/10.3129/i08-001
Johnson D, Deterding S, Kuhn KA, Staneva A, Stoyanov S, Hides L (2016) Gamification for health and wellbeing: a systematic review of the literature. Internet Interv 6:89–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2016.10.002
Kantha P, Lin JJ, Hsu WL (2023) The effects of interactive virtual reality in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Games Health J 12:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2022.0088
Kato PM (2010) Video games in health care: closing the gap. Rev Gen Psychol 14:113–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019441
Kazeminasab S, Nejadghaderi SA, Amiri P, Pourfathi H, Araj-Khodaei M, Sullman MJM, Kolahi AA, Safiri S (2022) Neck pain: global epidemiology, trends and risk factors. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 23:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04957-4
Kulkarni J, Pettifer S, Turner S, Richardson C (2020) An investigation into the effects of a virtual reality system on phantom limb pain: a pilot study. Br J Pain 14:92–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/2049463719859913
Kwon SH, Park JK, Koh YH (2023) A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of virtual reality-based rehabilitation for people with Parkinson’s disease. J Neuroeng Rehabil 20:94. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-023-01219-3
Lauwens Y, Rafaatpoor F, Corbeel K, Broekmans S, Toelen J, Allegaert K (2020) Immersive virtual reality as analgesia during dressing changes of hospitalized children and adolescents with burns: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Children 7:194. https://doi.org/10.3390/children7110194
Li L, Yu F, Shi D, Shi J, Tian Z, Yang J, Wang X, Jiang Q (2017) Application of virtual reality technology in clinical medicine. Am J Transl Res 9:3867–3880
Lopez-de-Uralde-Villanueva I, Beltran-Alacreu H, Fernandez-Carnero J, Kindelan-Calvo P, La Touche R (2016) Widespread pressure pain hyperalgesia in chronic nonspecific neck pain with neuropathic features: a descriptive cross-sectional study. Pain Physician 19:77–88
Navarro-Albarracín C, Poiraudeau S, Chico-Matallana N, Vergara-Martín J, Martin W, Castro-Sánchez AM, Matarán-Peñarrocha GA (2018) Spanish validation of the Exercise Therapy Burden Questionnaire (ETBQ) for the assessment of barriers associated to doing physical therapy for the treatment of chronic illness. Med Clin 150:428–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2017.11.028
Nijs Nijs J, Roussel N, Paul van Wilgen C, Köke A, Smeets R (2013) Thinking beyond muscles and joints: therapists’ and patients’ attitudes and beliefs regarding chronic musculoskeletal pain are key to applying effective treatment. Man Ther 18:96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.11.001
Nusser M, Knapp S, Kramer M, Krischak G (2021) Effects of virtual reality-based neck-specific sensorimotor training in patients with chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled pilot trial. J Rehabil Med 53:jrm00151. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2786
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Parikh P, Santaguida P, Macdermid J, Gross A, Eshtiaghi A (2019) Comparison of CPG’s for the diagnosis, prognosis and management of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 20:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2441-3
Pereira MF, Prahm C, Kolbenschlag J, Oliveira E, Rodrigues NF (2020) Application of AR and VR in hand rehabilitation: a systematic review. J Biomed Inform 111:103584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103584
Rezaei I, Razeghi M, Ebrahimi S, Kayedi S, Zadeh AR (2019) A novel virtual reality technique (Cervigame®) compared to conventional proprioceptive training to treat neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. J Biomed Phys Eng 9:355–366. https://doi.org/10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.556
Rutkowski S, Kiper P, Cacciante L, Cieślik B, Mazurek J, Turolla A, Szczepańska-Gieracha J (2020) Use of virtual reality-based training in different fields of rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rehabil Med 52:jrm00121. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2755
Safiri S, Kolahi AA, Hoy D, Buchbinder R, Mansournia MA, Bettampadi D, Ashrafi-Asgarabad A, Almasi-Hashiani A, Smith E, Sepidarkish M, Cross M, Qorbani M, Moradi-Lakeh M, Woolf AD, March L, Collins G, Ferreira ML (2020) Global, regional, and national burden of neck pain in the general population, 1990–2017: systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. BMJ 368:791. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m791
Silverman SR, Schertz LA, Yuen HK, Lowman JD, Bickel CS (2012) Systematic review of the methodological quality and outcome measures utilized in exercise interventions for adults with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 50:718–727. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2012.78
Smith V, Warty RR, Sursas JA, Payne O, Nair A, Krishnan S, da Silva CF, Wallace EM, Vollenhoven B (2020) The Effectiveness of virtual reality in managing acute pain and anxiety for medical inpatients: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 22:e17980. https://doi.org/10.2196/17980
Sutherland IE (1965) The Ultimate Display. Proceedings of IFIP Congress pp 506–508. http://www.universelle-automation.de/1965_Boston.pdf. https://my.eng.utah.edu/~cs6360/Readings/UltimateDisplay.pdf
Tejera DM, Beltran-Alacreu H, Cano-de-la-Cuerda R, Leon Hernández JV, Martín-Pintado-Zugasti A, Calvo-Lobo C, Gil-Martínez A, Fernández-Carnero J (2020) Effects of virtual reality versus exercise on pain, functional, somatosensory and psychosocial outcomes in patients with non-specific chronic neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:5950. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165950
Torres Sánchez I, Megías Salmerón Y, López López L, Ortiz Rubio A, Rodríguez Torres J, Valenza MC (2019) Videogames in the treatment of obstructive respiratory diseases: a systematic review. Games Health J 8:237–249. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2018.0062
Trost Z, Zielke M, Guck A, Nowlin L, Zakhidov D, France CR, Keefe F (2015) The promise and challenge of virtual gaming technologies for chronic pain: the case of graded exposure for low back pain. Pain Manag 5:197–206. https://doi.org/10.2217/pmt.15.6
Verhagen A (2021) Physiotherapy management of neck pain. J Physiother 67:5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2020.12.005
Vlaeyen JWS, Linton SJ (2012) Fear-avoidance model of chronic musculoskeletal pain: 12 years on. Pain 153:1144–1147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2011.12.009
Wang S, Sun J, Yin X, Li H (2022) Effect of virtual reality technology as intervention for people with kinesiophobia: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Clin Nurs. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16397
Funding
Funding for open access publishing: Universidad de Granada/CBUA. No funding was received for conducting this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All listed authors substantially contributed to preparing this manuscript. Conceptualization: BB-G, MCV, IT-S; Methodology: BB-G, AL-G, LP-G, MCV, IT-S; Formal analysis and investigation: BB-G, IT-S; Writing – original draft preparation: BB-G, AL-G, LP-G, MCV, IT-S; Writing – review and editing: BB-G, AL-G, LP-G, MCV, IT-S; Supervision: MCV, IT-S.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Search strategy studies
DATABASE | Cinahl |
DATE | 07/08/2023 |
SEARCH STRATEGY | #1 AND #2 |
#1 | AB (“neck pain”[Mesh] OR “neck pain” OR “cervical pain” OR “spine pain” OR “spinal pain”) |
#2 | AB (“Video Games”[Mesh] OR “video game*” OR “videogame*” OR “Gaming” OR “Game” OR “games” OR “Wii” OR “Nintendo” OR “Kinect” OR “Xbox” OR “PlayStation” OR “Virtual Reality”[Mesh] OR “virtual reality” OR “Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy”[Mesh] OR “exergame*” OR “gamification” OR “virtual” OR “computer-based” OR “augmented reality” OR “head-mounted display” OR “oculus rift” OR “oculus quest” OR “HTC Vive” OR “Steam VR” OR “leap motion”) |
DATABASE | Medline (Via PubMed) |
DATE | 07/08/2023 |
SEARCH STRATEGY | #1 AND #2 |
#1 | (“neck pain”[Mesh] OR “neck pain” OR “cervical pain” OR “spine pain” OR “spinal pain”) |
#2 | (“Video Games”[Mesh] OR “video game*” OR “videogame*” OR “Gaming” OR “Game” OR “games” OR “Wii” OR “Nintendo” OR “Kinect” OR “Xbox” OR “PlayStation” OR “Virtual Reality”[Mesh] OR “virtual reality” OR “Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy”[Mesh] OR “exergame*” OR “gamification” OR “virtual” OR “computer-based” OR “augmented reality” OR “head-mounted display” OR “oculus rift” OR “oculus quest” OR “HTC Vive” OR “Steam VR” OR “leap motion”) |
DATABASE | Scopus |
DATE | 07/08/2023 |
SEARCH STRATEGY | #1 AND #2 |
#1 | TITLE-ABS-KEY (“neck pain” OR “cervical pain” OR “spine pain” OR “spinal pain”) |
#2 | TITLE-ABS-KEY (“video game*” OR “videogame*” OR “Gaming” OR “Game” OR “games” OR “Wii” OR “Nintendo” OR “Kinect” OR “Xbox” OR “PlayStation” OR “virtual reality” OR “Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy” OR “exergame*” OR “gamification” OR “virtual” OR “computer-based” OR “augmented reality” OR “head-mounted display” OR “oculus rift” OR “oculus quest” OR “HTC Vive” OR “Steam VR” OR “leap motion”) |
DATABASE | Web Of Science |
DATE | 07/08/2023 |
SEARCH STRATEGY | #1 AND #2 |
#1 | TS = (“neck pain”[Mesh] OR “neck pain” OR “cervical pain” OR “spine pain” OR “spinal pain”) |
#2 | TS = (“Video Games”[Mesh] OR “video game*” OR “videogame*” OR “Gaming” OR “Game” OR “games” OR “Wii” OR “Nintendo” OR “Kinect” OR “Xbox” OR “PlayStation” OR “Virtual Reality”[Mesh] OR “virtual reality” OR “Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy”[Mesh] OR “exergame*” OR “gamification” OR “virtual” OR “computer-based” OR “augmented reality” OR “head-mounted display” OR “oculus rift” OR “oculus quest” OR “HTC Vive” OR “Steam VR” OR “leap motion”) |
Appendix 2: Search strategy ongoing trials
DATABASE | ClinicalTrials.gov |
DATE | 08/08/2023 |
STRATEGY | (“neck pain”) AND (“video games” OR “virtual reality” OR “virtual reality exposure therapy”) Filter: study type → interventional (clinical trial) |
DATABASE | ICTRP |
DATE | 08/08/2023 |
STRATEGY | “neck pain” AND “virtual reality” “neck pain” AND “virtual reality exposure therapy” “neck pain” AND “video games” |
DATABASE | ISRCTN registry |
DATE | 08/08/2023 |
STRATEGY | “neck pain” AND “virtual reality” “neck pain” AND “virtual reality exposure therapy” “neck pain” AND “video games” |
Appendix 3: Excluded studies in the last screening with reasons for exclusion (n = 17)
Article | Reason for exclusion |
---|---|
Therapeutic exercise based on videogames to improve neck pain | Not randomized trial |
Self-kinematic training for flight-associated neck pain: a randomized controlled trial | No chronic neck pain |
The effect of cranio-cervical flexion training and rest breaks on neck pain and functional performance in visual display unit users | Not using VRBR as treatment |
Use of virtual reality feedback for patients with chronic neck pain and kinesiophobia | Not randomized trial |
Exercise programs targeting scapular kinematics and stability are effective in decreasing neck pain: a critically appraised topic | Not randomized trial |
Effects of interactive virtual reality device on cervical pain and neck function in forward head posture | No chronic neck pain |
Virtual reality exercises in an interdisciplinary rehabilitation programme for persons with chronic neck pain: a feasibility study | Not randomized trial |
Bogus visual feedback alters onset of movement-evoked pain in people with neck pain | Not randomized trial |
Using visuo-kinetic virtual reality to induce illusory spinal movement: the MoOVi Illusion | No chronic neck pain |
A serious exergame for patients suffering from chronic musculoskeletal back and neck pain: a pilot study | Not randomized trial |
Using visual feedback manipulation in virtual reality to influence pain-free range of motion in people with nonspecific neck pain | Not randomized trial |
A system for head-neck rehabilitation exercises based on serious gaming and virtual reality | Not randomized trial |
Virtual reality and applications to treating neck pain | Not randomized trial |
Predictors for positive response to home kinematic training in chronic neck pain | Not randomized trial |
Exercise therapy program using immersive virtual reality for people with non-specific chronic neck pain: a 3 month retrospective open pilot and feasibility study | Not randomized trial |
Development of serious games for the rehabilitation of the human vertebral spine for home care | Not randomized trial |
The use of augmented reality in the teaching and training of basic exercises involved in the non‑surgical treatment of neck pain | Not randomized trial |
Appendix 4: Characteristics of included registry entries or ongoing trials (n = 10)
Number | Article | Recruitment status |
---|---|---|
NCT03987334 | Virtual reality rehabilitation in neck pain subjects | Recruiting |
NCT05244681 | Experiences of a home-based virtual reality serious game in people with chronic non-specific neck pain | Recruiting |
NCT05829564 | Virtual reality and cervical mobilization | Recruiting |
NCT05662683 | The effect of virtual reality and distraction cards on pain | Recruiting |
CTRI/2021/11/038130 | Effect of stabilization sensorimotor exercise and virtual reality in person with neck pain | Not recruiting |
CTRI/2021/10/037376 | Effect of stabilization sensorimotor exercise and Virtual reality on pain, movement, function and stability in neck pain | Not recruiting |
ChiCTR2000040132 | Virtual reality training for individuals with chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial | Not recruiting |
ChiCTR1900024327 | Virtual reality training for individuals with chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial | Not recruiting |
CTRI/2018/07/014733 | Immediate and short term effect of virtual reality training on pain and range of motion in patients having neck pain | Not recruiting |
RBR-6rrbtsd | Effect of virtual reality in the treatment of chronic neck pain | Recruiting |
Appendix 5: Downs and Black scores included studies
References | Study quality | External validity | Study bias | Confounding and selection bias | Study power | Total | Quality | ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | |||
Bahat et al. (2015) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | Good |
Bahat et al. (2018) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 19 | Fair |
Rezaei et al. (2019) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 24 | Good |
Tejera et al. (2020) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 23 | Good |
Nusser et al. (2021) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 21 | Good |
Cetin et al. (2022) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 21 | Good |
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Brea-Gómez, B., Laguna-González, A., Pérez-Gisbert, L. et al. Virtual reality based rehabilitation in adults with chronic neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Virtual Reality 28, 86 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-024-00979-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-024-00979-0