JMIR J Med Internet Res Journal of Medical Internet Research 1438-8871 JMIR Publications Toronto, Canada v26i1e45406 38407948 10.2196/45406 Review Review Virtual Reality–Based Training in Chronic Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Mavragani Amaryllis Ollevier Aline Underwood Martin R Li Ran MD 1 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2794-9948 Li Yinghao MD 3 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3234-8664 Kong Youli MSc 1 2 https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4814-594X Li Hanbin BSc 1 2 https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8798-9965 Hu Danrong PhD 1 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9998-4393 Fu Chenying PhD 4 5 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4416-7633 Wei Quan MD 1
Rehabilitation Medicine Center and Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine West China Hospital Sichuan University No.37 Guo Xue Alley Chengdu, 610041 China 86 18980606730 weiquan@scu.edu.cn
2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0541-905X Rehabilitation Medicine Center and Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine West China Hospital Sichuan University Chengdu China Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Medicine in Sichuan Province Chengdu China Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute West China Hospital Sichuan University Chengdu China National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics West China Hospital Sichuan University Chengdu China Aging and Geriatric Mechanism Laboratory West China Hospital Sichuan University Chengdu China Corresponding Author: Quan Wei weiquan@scu.edu.cn 2024 26 2 2024 26 e45406 29 12 2022 21 3 2023 16 4 2023 29 1 2024 ©Ran Li, Yinghao Li, Youli Kong, Hanbin Li, Danrong Hu, Chenying Fu, Quan Wei. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 26.02.2024. 2024

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

 Background

Low back pain is one of the most prevalent pain conditions worldwide. Virtual reality–based training has been used for low back pain as a new treatment strategy. Present evidence indicated that the effectiveness of virtual reality–based training for people with chronic low back pain is inconclusive.

 Objective

This study conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the immediate- and short-term effects of virtual reality–based training on pain, pain-related fear, and disability in people with chronic low back pain.

 Methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PEDro, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases from inception until January 2024. Only randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of virtual reality–based training on individuals with chronic low back pain were selected. The outcomes were focused on pain, pain-related fear measured by the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, and disability measured by the Oswestry Disability Index. The immediate term was defined as the immediate period after intervention, and the short term was defined as 3 to 6 months after intervention. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach were used to evaluate the quality of the methodology and evidence, respectively.

 Results

In total, 20 randomized controlled trials involving 1059 patients were eligible for analysis. Virtual reality–based training showed significant improvements in pain (mean difference [MD] –1.43; 95% CI –1.86 to –1.00; I2=95%; P<.001), pain-related fear using the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (MD –5.46; 95% CI –9.40 to 1.52; I2=90%; P=.007), and disability using the Oswestry Disability Index (MD –11.50; 95% CI –20.00 to –3.01; I2=95%; P=.008) in individuals with chronic low back pain immediately after interventions. However, there were no significant differences observed in pain (P=.16), pain-related fear (P=.10), and disability (P=.43) in the short term.

 Conclusions

These findings indicated that virtual reality–based training can be used effectively for individuals with chronic low back pain in the immediate term, especially to reduce pain, alleviate pain-related fear, and improve disability. However, the short-term benefits need more high-quality trials to be demonstrated.

 Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42021292633; http://tinyurl.com/25mydxpz

 virtual reality low back pain chronic rehabilitation exercise Introduction

Low back pain is a common musculoskeletal symptom influenced by complex interactions among biological, psychological, and social factors [1-3]. With more than 568 million people experiencing low back pain globally, it has become the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide [4,5]. Low back pain is defined by the location of pain, typically between the lower rib margins and the buttock creases [6]. Once the symptom persists for more than 3 months, it can be considered as chronic low back pain. Chronic low back pain may be accompanied by fear avoidance and dysfunction. Research has suggested that individuals who hold negative beliefs about their pain or their condition may experience an exaggerated fear of pain and the potential negative consequences of their symptoms. This fear can lead to a cycle of catastrophizing thoughts, pain-related fear, and avoidance of movements that they perceive as potentially painful or harmful [7]. Furthermore, fear avoidance and catastrophizing thoughts are considered catalysts for chronicity, resulting in prolonged recovery and increased disability rates [8].

Given the impaired physical function, quality of life, and even social participation from chronic low back pain [9], it is a global priority to establish an effective treatment [6,10,11]. Multicomponent exercises are frequently prescribed by physicians for chronic low back pain, as recommended by clinical practice guidelines and established by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [12-16]. Exercises encompass a diverse set of components including specific activities, postures, or movements (or all) [17]. It is reported that exercises may benefit patients with chronic low back pain by improving muscle strength and movement and enhancing postural musculature, stability, and coordination, or a combination of these factors [18]. Among the various exercises available, virtual reality–based training is becoming increasingly popular for the treatment of chronic low back pain [19-22]. It refers to digital training via computer-generated realities implemented with stereoscopic displays [23,24]. In addition, virtual reality–based training has been shown to reduce the focus on pain by dividing attention to tasks [25,26] and increase the motivation of movement through progressive achievement [27-29].

Two systematic reviews suggested that virtual reality–based training had a positive effect on improving pain intensity [30] and fear avoidance [31] in people with low back pain, while other systematic reviews indicated that the effectiveness of virtual reality–based training was inconclusive [32,33]. To our knowledge, evidence on the immediate-, short-, and long-term benefits of virtual reality–based training in patients with chronic low back pain does not exist as well. The evidence on the potential effectiveness of virtual reality–based training for chronic low back pain is still controversial and deficient. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the immediate-term and short-term efficacy of virtual reality–based training for chronic low back pain.

 Methods Design

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [34] and PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Multimedia Appendix 1) [35] and was performed following a protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021292633).

 Search Strategy

Two reviewers (RL and YL) independently searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PEDro, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases from inception until January 2024. Low back pain and virtual reality were searched as keywords. The full search strategy is described in Multimedia Appendix 2. The bibliographic references of the included studies and previous systematic reviews were also checked to identify additional trials.

 Study Selection

Studies concerning the effects of virtual reality involving individuals with low back pain were included in this systematic review. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) RCTs of parallel groups, (2) participants experiencing chronic low back pain, (3) virtual reality as intervention, (4) studies assessed clinical outcomes (eg, pain, pain-related fear, or disability), and (5) duration of intervention ≥8 sessions. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) reviews, case reports, and conference abstracts; (2) studies without enough information for data analysis; and (3) studies not written in English. The detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Textbox 1.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria

Paper type: randomized controlled trials of parallel groups

Study subjects: participants with chronic low back pain (3 months or more)

Interventions: virtual reality–based training as intervention alone or in combination with physical therapy, irregular of virtual reality devices; the duration of intervention is ≥8 sessions

Outcomes: at least 1 of the following outcome measurements: pain (Visual Analog Scale, Numerical Rating Scale, and Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale), pain-related fear (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia), or disability (Oswestry Disability Index)

Language: written in English

Exclusion criteria

Paper type: reviews, case reports, and conference abstracts

Study subjects: participants with other pain or low back pain lasting for less than 3 months

Interventions: no interventions involved virtual reality

Outcomes: without the required outcomes or no available data and not enough information for analysis

Language: non-English publications

 Outcome Measures

The outcomes were focused on pain, pain-related fear, and disability. The pain intensity was measured by the Visual Analog Scale, Numerical Rating Scale, and Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale, which have demonstrated strong validity and reliability in clinical and research settings [36-39]. The pain-related fear was measured by the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, which is frequently used in patients with back pain [40,41]. As for the functional disability, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was used [42].

 Data Extraction

Two reviewers (RL and YL) independently extracted the main information for the included studies using a standard extraction spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Corp). A third reviewer (YK) was consulted if the initial reviewers (RL and YL) disagreed. The detailed characteristics of the selected studies were summarized, which included study characteristics (author, year of publication, country, sample size, and follow-up points), population characteristics (gender, age, and pain duration), intervention characteristics (type, frequency, and duration), and outcome measurements (pain, pain-related fear, and disability).

 Quality Assessment

The quality of RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool [43], which consists of 5 domains and an overall judgment. The 5 domains include randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. Based on the answers to a series of signaling questions, the judgment options in each domain consist of “low risk of bias,” “some concerns,” and “high risk of bias.” Two independent researchers (RL and HL) assessed the quality of each eligible study. Disagreements in the data were settled by consensus.

We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence, which is rated as high, moderate, low, and very low [44]. The quality of RCTs is initially considered high and then downgraded based on risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias [45-49].

 Statistical Analysis

This meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager (version 5.30; Cochrane Collaboration), and all extracted data were input and checked by the reviewers (RL, YL, and YK). Mean differences (MDs) were calculated with the 95% CIs using the inverse variance method, when the outcomes were evaluated with the same scale. The chi-square test and inconsistency (I2) were used to calculate statistical heterogeneity. The random effect model was used when I2>50%; otherwise, the fixed-effect model was used. Statistical differences by meta-analysis were identified as P<.05. Furthermore, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was taken into consideration in this study, and the standard was established according to a previous report.

Subgroup analyses comparing the efficacy of virtual reality on pain, pain-related fear, and disability were performed for immediate-term and short-term outcomes separately. The immediate term was defined as the immediate period after intervention, and the short term was defined as 3 to 6 months after intervention.

 Results Study Selection and Characteristics

The initial search procedure yielded 583 records in total, 294 of which were removed due to duplication. After the screening process, 20 studies were selected for this systematic review and meta-analysis (Figure 1). The 20 papers included 1059 individuals diagnosed with chronic low back pain. The characteristics (sample size, gender, interventions, exposures, and outcome measurements) of the involved studies were summarized (Table 1). All studies had an RCT design: 7 used a 3-arm parallel-group design [21,50-55], and 1 used a 4-arm parallel-group design [56]. Of the included papers, 4 studies involved only female patients [20,22,57,58], and 6 studies involved only male patients [52-56,59].

Flowchart showing the study selection process. RCT: randomized controlled trial.

Characteristics of the included studies.

Study (year) Country Sample size Gender Mean age (years) Pain duration (months) Intervention Exposure Outcome measures Follow-up points
Afzal et al (2022) [19] Pakistan

Expa: 42

Conb: 42

Male: 28

Female: 56

Exp: 38.2

Con: 37.5

 		—c

Exp: Virtual reality–based exercises via kinetic exergames+physical therapy

Con: Back strengthening exercises+physical therapy

 		12 sessions; 3 times per week VASd; ODIe 4 weeks
Eccleston et al (2022) [50] Finland

Exp1: 14

Exp2: 17

Con: 11

Male: 5

Female: 37

Exp1: 55.14

Exp2: 52.76

Con: 57.09

>6

Exp1: Virtual reality–based cognitive behavioral intervention via Oculus Quest and Touch virtual reality headset and handheld controllers

Exp2: Viewed text-based cognitive behavioral intervention via Oculus Quest and Touch virtual reality headset

Con: Standard care

 		30 sessions; 5 times per week; 15-60 minutes per session NRSf; ODI; PROMISg 6b; TSKh; pain medications; EuroQoL-5D-5Li; adverse events; PGICj; Game Experience Questionnaire 9 weeks, 5 months
Garcia et al (2021) [60] United States

Exp: 94

Con: 94

Male: 43

Female: 144

Exp: 52.1

Con: 51.3

≥6

Exp: Virtual reality–based cognitive behavioral therapy via Pico G2 4K head-mounted virtual reality device (3D visual displays)

Con: Sham virtual reality–based cognitive behavioral therapy via Pico G2 4K head-mounted virtual reality device

 		56 sessions; 7 times per week; 2-16 minutes per session DVPRSk; DVPRS-II; PSEQl-2; PGIC; PROMIS 6b and 6a; PCSm; CPAQ-8n 8 weeks, 3 months, 6 months
Groenveld et al (2023) [61] Netherlands

Exp: 20

Con: 20

Male: 7

Female: 33

Exp: 51

Con: 52

Exp: 5

Con: 4

Exp: Virtual reality–based exercises via an Oculus Go head-mounted display

Con: Daily life routines

 		60 sessions; 3 times per day; 10-30 minutes per session SF-12o; VAS; PCS; HADSp; ODI; PCCLq; NEADLr; BPIs 4 weeks, 4 months
Kim et al (2014) [20] South Korea

Exp: 15

Con: 15

Male: 0

Female: 30

Exp: 44.33

Con: 50.46

 		—

Exp: Virtual reality–based yoga program via Wii Fit activities

Con: Trunk stabilizing exercise+physical therapy program

 		12 sessions; 3 times per week; 30 minutes per session VAS; pressure algometry; ODI; RMDQt; FABQu 4 weeks
Kim et al (2020) [62] South Korea

Exp: 24

Con: 24

Male: 26

Female: 22

Exp: 26.0

Con: 28.79

Exp: 58.22

Con: 101.55

Exp: Virtual reality–based simulated horseback riding

Con: Stabilization exercise via suspension

 		16 sessions; 2 times per week; 46 minutes per session NRS; ODI; RMDQ; FABQ 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 6 months
Li et al (2021) [51] China

Exp1: 11

Exp2: 12

Con: 11

Male: 9

Female: 25

Exp1: 21.91

Exp2: 23.75

Con: 25.36

Exp1: 30.18

Exp2: 38.83

Con: 49.82

Exp1: Virtual reality–based Fruit Ninja game via Kinect Xbox 360+magnetic therapy

Exp2: Ultrasound-guided abdominal drawing-in maneuver training+magnetic therapy

Con: Conventional thermal magnetic therapy

 		10 sessions; 5 times per week; 30 minutes per session VAS; ODI; sEMGv 2 weeks
Meinke et al (2022) [63] Switzerland

Exp: 13

Con: 14

Male: 10

Female: 17

Exp: 40.14

Con: 40.85

 		—

Exp: Virtual reality–based exergame via 2 inertial measurement units

Con: Daily life routines

 		9 sessions; 3 times per week; 20 minutes per session NRS; TSK; RMDQ; WHOQOL-Brefw 3 weeks
Monteiro-Junior et al (2015) [57] Brazil

Exp: 16

Con: 14

Male: 0

Female: 30

68

 		—

Exp: Virtual reality–based physical training via Nintendo Wii-motion and WBBx+core and strength training

Con: Core and strength training

 		24 sessions; 3 times per week; 90 minutes per session NRS; WBB; sit-to-stand test; POMSy 8 weeks
Nambi et al (2020) [54] Saudi Arabia

Exp1: 15

Exp2: 15

Con: 15

Male: 45

Female: 0

Exp1: 21.25

Exp2: 20.23

Con: 20.78

Exp1: 4.1

Exp2: 4.1

Con: 4.3

Exp1: Virtual reality–based-balance training via Pro-Kin system PK 252 N

Exp2: Balance training via Swiss ball

Con: Conventional balance training via active isotonic and isometric exercise

 		20 sessions; 5 times per week; 30 minutes per session VAS; player wellness; sprint performance; jump performance 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 6 months
Nambi et al (2021) [55] Saudi Arabia

Exp1: 20

Exp2: 20

Con: 20

Male: 60

Female: 0

Exp1: 21.45

Exp2: 21.39

Con: 20.97

Exp1: 4.8

Exp2: 5.2

Con: 4.9

Exp1: Virtual reality training via firing game

Exp2: Core stabilization training via therapeutic ball

Con: Traditional active balance exercise

 		20 sessions; 5 times per week; 30 minutes per session NRS; physical fitness index; sprint performance; jump performance 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 6 months
Nambi et al (2021) [53] Saudi Arabia

Exp1: 18

Exp2: 18

Con: 18

Male: 54

Female: 0

Exp1: 22.3

Exp2: 21.4

Con: 21.9

Exp1: 5.4

Exp2: 5.3

Con: 5.5

Exp1: Virtual reality training+hot pack therapy+ultrasound

Exp2: Isokinetic training+hot pack therapy+ultrasound

Con: Conventional core training+hot pack therapy+ultrasound

 		20 sessions; 5 times per week; 30 minutes per session VAS; TSK; blood serum level of stress hormones 4 weeks, 6 months
Nambi et al (2021) [52] Saudi Arabia

Exp1: 20

Exp2: 20

Con: 20

Male: 60

Female: 0

Exp1: 23.2

Exp2: 22.8

Con: 23.3

Exp1: 5.8

Exp2: 5.2

Con: 5.4

Exp1: Virtual reality training+hot pack therapy+ultrasound

Exp2: Isokinetic training+hot pack therapy+ultrasound

Con: Conventional core training+hot pack therapy+ultrasound

 		20 sessions; 5 times per week; 30 minutes per session VAS; TSK; blood serum level of stress hormones 4 weeks, 6 months
Oh et al (2014) [56] South Korea

Exp1: 9

Exp2: 9

Exp3: 10

Con: 9

Male: 37

Female: 0

Exp1: 20.7

Exp2: 20.56

Exp3: 20.33

Con: 20.44

Exp1: 6.38

Exp2: 6.21

Exp3: 7.57

Con: 6.75

Exp1: Virtual reality training via horse simulator machine for 10 minutes

Exp2: Virtual reality training via horse simulator machine for 20 minutes

Exp3: Virtual reality training via horse simulator machine for 30 minutes

Con: Daily life routines

 		40 sessions; 5 times per week; 15-35 minutes per session VAS; body composition; isokinetic trunk and hip extension or flexion and hip abduction or adduction 8 weeks
Park et al (2013) [21] South Korea

Exp1: 8

Exp2: 8

Con: 8

 		—

Exp1: 44.12

Exp2: 43.37

Con: 44.12

Exp1: 17.0

Exp2: 16.0

Con: 18.75

Exp1: Virtual reality–based training via Nintendo Wii program+physical therapy

Exp2: Lumbar stabilization exercise+physical therapy

Con: Physical therapy (eg, hot pack, interferential current therapy, and deep heat with ultrasound)

 		24 sessions; 3 times per week; 80 minutes per session VAS; isometric lifting strength for back strength; 1-legged Stand Test for balance ability; RAND-36z; SF-36aa 8 weeks
Park et al (2020) [58] South Korea

Exp: 40

Con: 40

Male: 0

Female: 80

Exp: 71.35

Con: 72.05

Exp: 23.61

Con: 22.10

Exp: Virtual reality–based training via equestrian simulator

Con: Sitting on the equestrian simulator

 		36 sessions; 3 times per week; 30 minutes per session VAS; ODI; body composition; isokinetic trunk extension and flexion; spinal alignment 12 weeks
Yalfani et al (2022) [22] Japan

Exp: 13

Con: 12

Male: 0

Female: 25

Exp: 68

Con: 67.08

>6

Exp: Virtual reality–based training via Xbox Kinect headset

Con: Daily life routines

 		24 sessions; 3 times per week; 30 minutes per session VAS; SF-36; FRIab; BBSac 2 weeks
Yilmaz Yelvar et al (2017) [64] Iran

Exp: 22

Con: 22

Male: 16

Female: 28

Exp: 46.27

Con: 52.81

Exp: 5.27

Con: 7.45

Exp: Virtual walking task via Vita Digital Productions+physical therapy

Con: Physical therapy (eg, hot pack, TENSad, deep heat with ultrasound, and therapeutic exercises)

 		10 sessions; 5 times per week VAS; TSK; ODI; Nottingham Health Profile; TUGae; 6MWTaf; single-leg balance test 2 weeks
Yoo et al (2014) [59] South Korea

Exp: 24

Con: 23

Male: 47

Female: 0

Exp: 20.44

Con: 20.7

Exp: 9.41

Con: 8.35

Exp: Virtual reality–based training via horse simulator

Con: Daily life routines

 		24 sessions; 3 times per week; 20-50 minutes per session VAS; body composition; isokinetic trunk strength 8 weeks
Zadro et al (2019) [65] Turkey

Exp: 30

Con: 30

Male: 29

Female: 31

Exp: 68.8

Con: 67.8

>3

Exp: Video game home-based exercise via Nintendo Wii U console

Con: Daily life routines

 		24 sessions; 3 times per week; 60 minutes per session NRS; TSK; PSEQ; 3-item questionnaire; Rapid Assessment of Physical Activity questionnaire; PSFSag; RMDQ; 16-item Falls Efficacy Scale-International Questionnaire 8 weeks

aExp: experimental group.

bCon: control group.

cNot available.

dVAS: Visual Analog Scale.

eODI: Oswestry Disability Index.

fNRS: Numerical Rating Scale.

gPROMIS: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System.

hTSK: Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia.

iEuroQoL-5D-5L: European Quality of Life 5-dimension, 5-level scale.

jPGIC: Patient’s Global Impression of Change.

kDVPRS: Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale.

lPSEQ: Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire.

mPCS: Pain Catastrophizing Scale.

nCPAQ-8: Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire.

oSF-12: 12-item Short-Form Health Survey.

pHADS: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

qPCCL: Pain Coping and Cognition List.

rNEADL: Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living.

sBPI: Brief Pain Inventory.

tRMDQ: Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire.

uFABQ: Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire.

vsEMG: surface electromyography.

wWHOQOL-Brief: World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire-short version.

xWBB: Wii Balance Board.

yPOMS: Profile of Mood States.

zRAND-36: RAND-36 Health Status Inventory.

aaSF-36: 36-item Short-Form Health Survey.

abFRI: Fall Risk Index.

acBBS: Biodex Balance System.

adTENS: transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

aeTUG: Timed Up and Go Test.

af6MWT: 6-Minute Walk Test.

agPSFS: Patient-Specific Functional Scale.

 Risk of Bias

In total, 20 studies were considered as having some concerns in overall bias, 2 as having a high risk of bias [20,21], and 1 as having a low risk of bias [19] (Figure 2 [19-22,50-65]). Due to the nature and setting of the intervention, it was not possible to blind the patients or therapists delivering the intervention, leading to some concerns in the second domain (deviations from the intended intervention). There was a high risk of bias regarding the measurement of outcome because of insufficient information on blinded assessment [20,21]. Baseline between intervention groups had significant differences in 2 studies [64,65].

Risk-of-bias graph and summary.

 Outcomes Pain

All studies investigated the efficacy of virtual reality on pain using the Visual Analog Scale, Numerical Rating Scale, and Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale on a scale from 0 to 10. In total, 19 RCTs provided available data that were pooled into a meta-analysis (Figure 3 [19-22,50-60,62-65]). There were statistically significant differences between virtual reality–based training and conventional treatments for pain reduction in the immediate term (MD –1.43; 95% CI –1.86 to –1.00; I2=95%; P<.001) but not in the short term (MD –0.57; 95% CI –1.36 to 0.22; I2=99%; P=.16). Both did not reach an MCID at the level of 2.5 [66,67].

Forest plots for virtual reality–based training compared with controls in pain. IV: inverse variance.

 Pain-Related Fear

In total, 6 studies investigated the efficacy of virtual reality–based training on pain-related fear using the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (Figure 4 [50,52,53,63-65]). Virtual reality–based training showed significant improvements in individuals with chronic low back pain in the immediate term (MD –5.46; 95% CI –9.40 to –1.52; I2=90%; P=.007), while it did not show statistically significant differences in the short term (MD –5.66; 95% CI –12.34 to 1.01; I2=96%; P=.10). The difference in the immediate- and short-term performance was extremely close to an MCID at the level of 5.5 [68].

Forest plots for virtual reality–based training compared with controls in pain-related fear. IV: inverse variance.

 Disability

In total, 8 studies investigated the efficacy of virtual reality–based training on disability using the ODI (Figure 5 [19,20,50,51,58,61,62,64]). There were statistically significant differences between virtual reality–based training and conventional treatments in terms of the ODI in the immediate term (MD –11.50; 95% CI –20.00 to –3.01; I2=95%; P=.008) but not in the short term (MD –1.28; 95% CI –4.47 to 1.90; I2=0%; P=.43). Only the immediate-term outcome did reach an MCID at the level of 10 [66,69].

Forest plots for virtual reality–based training compared with controls in disability. IV: inverse variance.

 Quality of Evidence

The quality of evidence ranged from low to very low due to the risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency of included trials (Table 2). None were downgraded because of indirectness and publication bias.

Summary of the findings and level of certainty using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

Time point and outcomes Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Publication bias Participants, n RCTa, n Mean difference (95% CI) Certainty
Immediate term
Pain Seriousb Seriousc Not serious Not serious Not serious 879 19 –1.43 (–1.86 to –1.00) Low
Pain-related fear Seriousb Seriousc Not serious Seriousd Not serious 229 6 –5.46 (–9.40 to –1.52) Very low
Disability Seriousb Seriousc Not serious Seriousd Not serious 377 8 –11.50 (–20.00 to –3.01) Very low
Short term
Pain-related fear Seriousb Seriousc Not serious Seriousd Not serious 106 3 –5.66 (–12.34 to 1.01) Very low
Pain Seriousb Seriousc Not serious Seriousd Not serious 393 7 –0.57 (–1.36 to 0.22) Very low
Disability Seriousb Not serious Not serious Seriousd Not serious 96 3 –1.28 (–4.47 to 1.90) Low

aRCT: randomized controlled trial.

bDowngrade due to the majority of trials rated as some concerns.

cDowngrade due to I2 statistics >50%.

dDowngrade due to pooled sample sizes <400.

 Discussion Principal Findings

This systematic review and meta-analysis, based on 20 RCTs, aimed to assess the available evidence on the efficacy of virtual reality–based training for people with chronic low back pain. The findings indicated that virtual reality–based training appeared to be an effective method of improving pain, pain-related fear, and disability immediately after intervention. However, current evidence failed to support the effectiveness of virtual reality–based training in the short term.

Virtual reality–based training has demonstrated efficacy in pain reduction for people with chronic low back pain [30,70]. However, our pooled results showed only a statistically significant reduction in pain immediately after interventions but not in the short term, which is consistent with previous studies [71-73]. In this study, there were no clinically significant differences between the immediate- and short-term performance. This may be explained by the fact that the virtual reality environment contributes to distraction from pain-related information [74,75]. However, once they gradually return to routines, the attention bias to pain might develop more often than being immersed in a virtual reality environment. This is supported by the finding that patients with chronic pain may less easily distract from the pain [76,77] due to higher levels of attention bias to pain [78].

Pain-related fear can activate the avoidance of movement, leading to the progression of disability [1]. In this study, we found that virtual reality–based training was superior to improve pain-related fear immediately after interventions, which is consistent with the effect on disability for individuals with chronic low back pain. It is worth noting that fear avoidance limits the opportunity to attune expectations to actual experiences, leading to long-term disability [79]. Consequently, with the alleviation of pain-related fear, individuals with chronic low back pain may be willing to pursue a positive experience, which is helpful to increase the level of physical activity. Although the large difference in the efficacy on pain-related fear in the short term indicated clinically important results but not statistically significant results, it should be interpreted cautiously due to the very low quality of evidence. Furthermore, the efficacy of virtual reality–based training on disability in the short term is also with low evidence. More high-quality RCTs are urgently needed for future research.

 Strengths and Limitations

This systematic review and meta-analysis conducted a thorough screening and search strategy in 6 important databases. Additionally, this study focused on RCTs to reinforce the evidence of pooled results. We also used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the included studies and evidence, respectively. However, the potential limitations in this study need to be mentioned. First, high heterogeneity was presented in this meta-analysis due to the variety of sample size, intervention items, frequency, duration, and control items. Second, the study population varied from each other, especially age and gender. Third, there were only data on short-term outcomes (3 to 6 months after interventions), and no available data on the mid- or long-term (more than 6 months) effects of virtual reality–based training for participants with chronic low back pain. These findings indicated that more studies are required to strengthen the evidence.

 Implications for Clinical Practice and Future Research

Despite the low level of certainty, these findings may provide important implications for health care professionals. In clinical practice, the virtual reality–based training may be recommended for patients with chronic low back pain in order to distract and reduce the focus on pain. However, the persistence of efficacy needs to be considered when applying virtual reality–based training. Based on the present evidence in this study, it may be even better for immediate effects. Furthermore, the virtual reality–based training should be tailored to the needs and characteristics of patients in order to optimize the performance and maintain the efficacy. Future research should focus on different types of virtual reality, intervention parameters (eg, types, frequency, intensity, and time), and different population. These issues require further refinement through larger sample sizes, longer intervention duration, and longer follow-ups. In addition, it is urgent to explore the feasibility of virtual reality–based training in different socioeconomic contexts to ensure broader and cost-effective access to this type of intervention.

 Conclusions

In general, these findings support that virtual reality–based training is a promising treatment strategy for individuals with chronic low back pain immediately after interventions, especially to alleviate pain, pain-related fear, and disability. However, there is still not sufficient evidence to suggest that virtual reality–based training is effective in chronic low back pain in the short term. More high-quality RCTs are required to find short- and long-term benefits and to obtain more robust evidence.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.

Search strategy for PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Web of Science.

 Abbreviations GRADE

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation

 MCID

minimal clinically important difference

 MD

mean difference

 ODI

Oswestry Disability Index

 PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

 RCT

randomized controlled trial

All authors thank the authors who conducted the clinical trials included in our systematic review for their efforts. This work was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (grants 2020YFC2008500 and 2020YFC2008502); National Natural Science Foundation of China (grants 81572231 and 82172534); and 1·3·5 Project for Disciplines of Excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University (grant ZYJC21038).

 Data Availability

The data sets generated and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

RL and QW contributed to the conception and design of the study. RL, YL, YK, and HL completed the search, study selection, and data extraction. RL, DH, and CF analyzed the data and drafted the paper. All authors have approved the final version of the paper.

None declared.

 Gatchel RJ Peng YB Peters ML Fuchs PN Turk DC The biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: scientific advances and future directions Psychol Bull 2007 07 133 4 581 624 10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.581 17592957 2007-09203-002 Mescouto K Olson RE Hodges PW Setchell J A critical review of the biopsychosocial model of low back pain care: time for a new approach? Disabil Rehabil 2022 06 44 13 3270 3284 10.1080/09638288.2020.1851783 33284644 Kamper SJ Apeldoorn AT Chiarotto A Smeets RJEM Ostelo RWJG Guzman J van Tulder MW Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ 2015 02 18 350 h444 10.1136/bmj.h444 25694111 PMC4353283 GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 Lancet 2020 10 17 396 10258 1204 1222 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9 33069326 S0140-6736(20)30925-9 PMC7567026 Chen S Chen M Wu X Lin S Tao C Cao H Shao Z Xiao G Global, regional and national burden of low back pain 1990-2019: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease study 2019 J Orthop Translat 2022 01 32 49 58 10.1016/j.jot.2021.07.005 34934626 S2214-031X(21)00059-0 PMC8639804 Hartvigsen J Hancock MJ Kongsted A Louw Q Ferreira ML Genevay S Hoy D Karppinen J Pransky G Sieper J Smeets RJ Underwood M What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention Lancet 2018 06 09 391 10137 2356 2367 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X 29573870 S0140-6736(18)30480-X Wertli MM Eugster R Held U Steurer J Kofmehl R Weiser S Catastrophizing—a prognostic factor for outcome in patients with low back pain: a systematic review Spine J 2014 11 01 14 11 2639 2657 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.003 24607845 S1529-9430(14)00243-5 Synnott A O'Keeffe M Bunzli S Dankaerts W O'Sullivan P O'Sullivan K Physiotherapists may stigmatise or feel unprepared to treat people with low back pain and psychosocial factors that influence recovery: a systematic review J Physiother 2015 04 61 2 68 76 10.1016/j.jphys.2015.02.016 25812929 S1836-9553(15)00017-X O'Keeffe M George SZ O'Sullivan PB O'Sullivan K Psychosocial factors in low back pain: letting go of our misconceptions can help management Br J Sports Med 2019 07 53 13 793 794 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099816 30154205 bjsports-2018-099816 Buchbinder R van Tulder M Öberg Birgitta Costa LM Woolf A Schoene M Croft P Low back pain: a call for action Lancet 2018 06 09 391 10137 2384 2388 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30488-4 29573871 S0140-6736(18)30488-4 Foster NE Anema JR Cherkin D Chou R Cohen SP Gross DP Ferreira PH Fritz JM Koes BW Peul W Turner JA Maher CG Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions Lancet 2018 06 09 391 10137 2368 2383 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30489-6 29573872 S0140-6736(18)30489-6 Bernstein IA Malik Q Carville S Ward S Low back pain and sciatica: summary of NICE guidance BMJ 2017 01 06 356 i6748 10.1136/bmj.i6748 28062522 Chou R Deyo R Friedly J Skelly A Hashimoto R Weimer M Fu R Dana T Kraegel P Griffin J Grusing S Brodt ED Nonpharmacologic therapies for low back pain: a systematic review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline Ann Intern Med 2017 04 04 166 7 493 505 10.7326/M16-2459 28192793 2603230 Miyamoto GC Franco KFM van Dongen JM Franco YRDS de Oliveira NTB Amaral DDV Branco ANC da Silva ML van Tulder MW Cabral CMN Different doses of Pilates-based exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation Br J Sports Med 2018 07 52 13 859 868 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098825 29525763 bjsports-2017-098825 Qaseem A Wilt TJ McLean RM Forciea MA Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians Ann Intern Med 2017 04 04 166 7 514 530 10.7326/M16-2367 28192789 2603228 Saper RB Lemaster C Delitto A Sherman KJ Herman PM Sadikova E Stevans J Keosaian JE Cerrada CJ Femia AL Roseen EJ Gardiner P Gergen Barnett K Faulkner C Weinberg J Yoga, physical therapy, or education for chronic low back pain Ann Intern Med 2017 06 20 167 2 85 94 10.7326/M16-2579 28631003 2633222 PMC6392183 Hayden JA Ellis J Ogilvie R Malmivaara A van Tulder MW Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021 09 28 9 9 CD009790 10.1002/14651858.CD009790.pub2 34580864 PMC8477273 Powell KE Paluch AE Blair SN Physical activity for health: what kind? how much? how intense? on top of what? Annu Rev Public Health 2011 32 349 365 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101151 21128761 Afzal MW Ahmad A Mohseni Bandpei MA Gilani SA Hanif A Waqas MS Effects of virtual reality exercises and routine physical therapy on pain intensity and functional disability in patients with chronic low back pain J Pak Med Assoc 2022 03 72 3 413 417 10.47391/JPMA.3424 35320216 11172 Kim SS Min WK Kim JH Lee BH The effects of VR-based Wii Fit Yoga on physical function in middle-aged female LBP patients J Phys Ther Sci 2014 04 26 4 549 552 10.1589/jpts.26.549 24764631 jpts-2013-420 PMC3996419 Park JH Lee SH Ko DS The effects of the Nintendo Wii exercise program on chronic work-related low back pain in industrial workers J Phys Ther Sci 2013 08 25 8 985 988 10.1589/jpts.25.985 24259899 jpts-2013-084 PMC3820229 Yalfani A Abedi M Raeisi Z Effects of an 8-week virtual reality training program on pain, fall risk, and quality of life in elderly women with chronic low back pain: double-blind randomized clinical trial Games Health J 2022 04 11 2 85 92 10.1089/g4h.2021.0175 35290742 Mirelman A Maidan I Deutsch JE Virtual reality and motor imagery: promising tools for assessment and therapy in Parkinson's disease Mov Disord 2013 09 15 28 11 1597 1608 10.1002/mds.25670 24132848 Wiederhold BK Soomro A Riva G Wiederhold MD Future directions: advances and implications of virtual environments designed for pain management Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2014 06 17 6 414 422 10.1089/cyber.2014.0197 24892206 PMC4043364 Matheve T Bogaerts K Timmermans A Virtual reality distraction induces hypoalgesia in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial J Neuroeng Rehabil 2020 04 22 17 1 55 10.1186/s12984-020-00688-0 32321516 10.1186/s12984-020-00688-0 PMC7178732 Hoffman HG Richards TL Van Oostrom T Coda BA Jensen MP Blough DK Sharar SR The analgesic effects of opioids and immersive virtual reality distraction: evidence from subjective and functional brain imaging assessments Anesth Analg 2007 12 105 6 1776 1783 10.1213/01.ane.0000270205.45146.db 18042882 105/6/1776 Kowatsch T Lohse KM Erb V Schittenhelm L Galliker H Lehner R Huang EM Hybrid ubiquitous coaching with a novel combination of mobile and holographic conversational agents targeting adherence to home exercises: four design and evaluation studies J Med Internet Res 2021 02 22 23 2 e23612 10.2196/23612 33461957 v23i2e23612 PMC7939948 Thomas JS France CR Applegate ME Leitkam ST Walkowski S Feasibility and safety of a virtual reality dodgeball intervention for chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial J Pain 2016 12 17 12 1302 1317 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.08.011 27616607 S1526-5900(16)30206-1 PMC5125833 Georgescu R Fodor LA Dobrean A Cristea IA Psychological interventions using virtual reality for pain associated with medical procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis Psychol Med 2020 08 50 11 1795 1807 10.1017/S0033291719001855 31456530 S0033291719001855 Bordeleau M Stamenkovic A Tardif PA Thomas J The use of virtual reality in back pain rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Pain 2022 02 23 2 175 195 10.1016/j.jpain.2021.08.001 34425250 S1526-5900(21)00311-4 Brea-Gómez B Torres-Sánchez I Ortiz-Rubio A Calvache-Mateo A Cabrera-Martos I López-López L Valenza MC 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 2021 11 11 18 22 11806 10.3390/ijerph182211806 34831562 ijerph182211806 PMC8621053 Grassini S Virtual reality assisted non-pharmacological treatments in chronic pain management: a systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022 03 29 19 7 4071 10.3390/ijerph19074071 35409751 ijerph19074071 PMC8998682 Gumaa M Rehan Youssef A Is virtual reality effective in orthopedic rehabilitation? a systematic review and meta-analysis Phys Ther 2019 10 28 99 10 1304 1325 10.1093/ptj/pzz093 31343702 5537309 Moher D Liberati A Tetzlaff J Altman DG PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement BMJ 2009 07 21 339 b2535 10.1136/bmj.b2535 19622551 bmj.b2535 PMC2714657 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 The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021 03 29 372 n71 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057 PMC8005924 Boonstra AM Schiphorst Preuper HR Reneman MF Posthumus JB Stewart RE Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain Int J Rehabil Res 2008 06 31 2 165 169 10.1097/MRR.0b013e3282fc0f93 18467932 00004356-200806000-00008 Chapman JR Norvell DC Hermsmeyer JT Bransford RJ DeVine J McGirt MJ Lee MJ Evaluating common outcomes for measuring treatment success for chronic low back pain Spine 2011 10 01 36 Suppl 21 S54 S68 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822ef74d 21952190 00007632-201110011-00005 Nassif TH Hull A Holliday SB Sullivan P Sandbrink F Concurrent validity of the defense and veterans pain rating scale in VA outpatients Pain Med 2015 11 16 11 2152 2161 10.1111/pme.12866 26257151 Williamson A Hoggart B Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales J Clin Nurs 2005 08 14 7 798 804 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01121.x 16000093 JCN1121 Lundberg MKE Styf J Carlsson SG A psychometric evaluation of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia—from a physiotherapeutic perspective Physiother Theory Pract 2009 07 10 20 2 121 133 10.1080/09593980490453002 Woby SR Roach NK Urmston M Watson PJ Psychometric properties of the TSK-11: a shortened version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia Pain 2005 09 117 1-2 137 144 10.1016/j.pain.2005.05.029 16055269 S0304-3959(05)00269-1 Fairbank JC Pynsent PB The Oswestry Disability Index Spine 2000 11 15 25 22 2940 2952; discussion 2952 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 11074683 Sterne JAC Savović J Page MJ Elbers RG Blencowe NS Boutron I Cates CJ Cheng H Corbett MS Eldridge SM Emberson JR Hernán MA Hopewell S Hróbjartsson A Junqueira DR Jüni P Kirkham JJ Lasserson T Li T McAleenan A Reeves BC Shepperd S Shrier I Stewart LA Tilling K White IR Whiting PF Higgins JPT RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 2019 08 28 366 l4898 10.1136/bmj.l4898 31462531 Guyatt GH Oxman AD Vist GE Kunz R Falck-Ytter Y Alonso-Coello P Schünemann HJ GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations BMJ 2008 04 26 336 7650 924 926 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD 18436948 336/7650/924 PMC2335261 Guyatt GH Oxman AD Kunz R Brozek J Alonso-Coello P Rind D Devereaux PJ Montori VM Freyschuss B Vist G Jaeschke R Williams JW Murad MH Sinclair D Falck-Ytter Y Meerpohl J Whittington C Thorlund K Andrews J Schünemann HJ GRADE guidelines 6. rating the quality of evidence—imprecision J Clin Epidemiol 2011 12 64 12 1283 1293 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012 21839614 S0895-4356(11)00206-X Guyatt GH Oxman AD Vist G Kunz R Brozek J Alonso-Coello P Montori V Akl EA Djulbegovic B Falck-Ytter Y Norris SL Williams JW Atkins D Meerpohl J Schünemann HJ GRADE guidelines: 4. rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias) J Clin Epidemiol 2011 04 64 4 407 415 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017 21247734 S0895-4356(10)00413-0 Guyatt GH Oxman AD Montori V Vist G Kunz R Brozek J Alonso-Coello P Djulbegovic B Atkins D Falck-Ytter Y Williams JW Meerpohl J Norris SL Akl EA Schünemann HJ GRADE guidelines: 5. rating the quality of evidence—publication bias J Clin Epidemiol 2011 12 64 12 1277 1282 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011 21802904 S0895-4356(11)00181-8 Guyatt GH Oxman AD Kunz R Woodcock J Brozek J Helfand M Alonso-Coello P Glasziou P Jaeschke R Akl EA Norris S Vist G Dahm P Shukla VK Higgins J Falck-Ytter Y Schünemann HJ GRADE guidelines: 7. rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency J Clin Epidemiol 2011 12 64 12 1294 1302 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017 21803546 S0895-4356(11)00182-X Guyatt GH Oxman AD Kunz R Woodcock J Brozek J Helfand M Alonso-Coello P Falck-Ytter Y Jaeschke R Vist G Akl EA Post PN Norris S Meerpohl J Shukla VK Nasser M Schünemann HJ GRADE guidelines: 8. rating the quality of evidence—indirectness J Clin Epidemiol 2011 12 64 12 1303 1310 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.014 21802903 S0895-4356(11)00183-1 Eccleston C Fisher E Liikkanen S Sarapohja T Stenfors C Jääskeläinen Satu K Rice ASC Mattila L Blom T Bratty JR A prospective, double-blind, pilot, randomized, controlled trial of an "embodied" virtual reality intervention for adults with low back pain Pain 2022 09 01 163 9 1700 1715 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002617 35324507 00006396-202209000-00010 PMC9393796 Li Z Yu Q Luo H Liang W Li X Ge L Zhang S Li L Wang C The effect of virtual reality training on anticipatory postural adjustments in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a preliminary study Neural Plast 2021 2021 9975862 10.1155/2021/9975862 34367274 PMC8337111 Nambi G Abdelbasset WK Alrawaili SM Alsubaie SF Abodonya AM Saleh AK Virtual reality or isokinetic training; its effect on pain, kinesiophobia and serum stress hormones in chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial Technol Health Care 2021 29 1 155 166 10.3233/THC-202301 32831210 THC202301 Nambi G Abdelbasset WK Alsubaie SF Saleh AK Verma A Abdelaziz MA Alkathiry AA Short-term psychological and hormonal effects of virtual reality training on chronic low back pain in soccer players J Sport Rehabil 2021 02 16 30 6 884 893 10.1123/jsr.2020-0075 33596538 Nambi G Abdelbasset WK Elsayed SH Alrawaili SM Abodonya AM Saleh AK Elnegamy TE Comparative effects of isokinetic training and virtual reality training on sports performances in university football players with chronic low back pain-randomized controlled study Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2020 2020 2981273 10.1155/2020/2981273 32617104 PMC7315304 Nambi G Abdelbasset WK Elsayed SH Verma A George JS Saleh AK Eficiência clínica e física de jogos de realidade virtual em jogadores de futebol com dor lombar. Clinical and physical efficiency of virtual reality games in soccer players with low back pain Rev Bras Med Esporte 2021 27 6 597 10.1590/1517-86922021270620210034 Oh HW Lee MG Jang JY Jin JJ Cha JY Jin YY Jee YS Time-effects of horse simulator exercise on psychophysiological responses in men with chronic low back pain IES 2014 06 01 22 2 153 163 10.3233/ies-140533 Monteiro-Junior RS de Souza CP Lattari E Rocha NBF Mura G Machado S da Silva EB Wii-workouts on chronic pain, physical capabilities and mood of older women: a randomized controlled double blind trial CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets 2015 14 9 1157 1164 10.2174/1871527315666151111120131 26556092 CNSNDDT-EPUB-71722 Park S Park S Min S Kim CJ Jee YS A randomized controlled trial investigating the effects of equine simulator riding on low back pain, morphological changes, and trunk musculature in elderly women Medicina (Kaunas) 2020 11 13 56 11 610 10.3390/medicina56110610 33202928 medicina56110610 PMC7696898 Yoo JH Kim SE Lee MG Jin JJ Hong J Choi YT Kim MH Jee YS The effect of horse simulator riding on visual analogue scale, body composition and trunk strength in the patients with chronic low back pain Int J Clin Pract 2014 08 68 8 941 949 10.1111/ijcp.12414 25039929 Garcia LM Birckhead BJ Krishnamurthy P Sackman J Mackey IG Louis RG Salmasi V Maddox T Darnall BD 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 2021 02 22 23 2 e26292 10.2196/26292 33484240 v23i2e26292 PMC7939946 Groenveld TD Smits MLM Knoop J Kallewaard JW Staal JB de Vries M van Goor H Effect of a behavioral therapy-based virtual reality application on quality of life in chronic low back pain Clin J Pain 2023 06 01 39 6 278 285 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001110 37002877 00002508-202306000-00004 PMC10205123 Kim T Lee J Oh S Kim S Yoon B Effectiveness of simulated horseback riding for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial J Sport Rehabil 2020 02 01 29 2 179 185 10.1123/jsr.2018-0252 30676224 jsr.2018-0252 Meinke A Peters R Knols RH Swanenburg J Karlen W Feedback on trunk movements from an electronic game to improve postural balance in people with nonspecific low back pain: pilot randomized controlled trial JMIR Serious Games 2022 06 10 10 2 e31685 10.2196/31685 35687390 v10i2e31685 PMC9233263 Yilmaz Yelvar GD Çırak Y Dalkılınç M Parlak Demir Y Guner Z Boydak A Is physiotherapy integrated virtual walking effective on pain, function, and kinesiophobia in patients with non-specific low-back pain? randomised controlled trial Eur Spine J 2017 02 26 2 538 545 10.1007/s00586-016-4892-7 27981455 10.1007/s00586-016-4892-7 Zadro JR Shirley D Simic M Mousavi SJ Ceprnja D Maka K Sung J Ferreira P Video-game-based exercises for older people with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlledtable trial (GAMEBACK) Phys Ther 2019 01 01 99 1 14 27 10.1093/ptj/pzy112 30247715 5104462 Ostelo RWJG de Vet HCW Clinically important outcomes in low back pain Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2005 08 19 4 593 607 10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003 15949778 S1521-6942(05)00026-4 van der Roer N Ostelo RWJG Bekkering GE van Tulder MW de Vet HCW Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain Spine 2006 03 01 31 5 578 582 10.1097/01.brs.0000201293.57439.47 16508555 00007632-200603010-00015 Monticone M Ambrosini E Rocca B Foti C Ferrante S Responsiveness of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia in Italian subjects with chronic low back pain undergoing motor and cognitive rehabilitation Eur Spine J 2016 09 25 9 2882 2888 10.1007/s00586-016-4682-2 27356516 10.1007/s00586-016-4682-2 Ostelo RWJG Deyo RA Stratford P Waddell G Croft P Von Korff M Bouter LM de Vet HC Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change Spine 2008 01 01 33 1 90 94 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10 18165753 00007632-200801010-00015 Nagpal AS Raghunandan A Tata F Kibler D McGeary D Virtual reality in the management of chronic low back pain: a scoping review Front Pain Res (Lausanne) 2022 3 856935 10.3389/fpain.2022.856935 35295809 PMC8915689 House G Burdea G Grampurohit N Polistico K Roll D Damiani F Hundal J Demesmin D A feasibility study to determine the benefits of upper extremity virtual rehabilitation therapy for coping with chronic pain post-cancer surgery Br J Pain 2016 11 10 4 186 197 10.1177/2049463716664370 27867508 10.1177_2049463716664370 PMC5102098 Sato K Fukumori S Matsusaki T Maruo T Ishikawa S Nishie H Takata K Mizuhara H Mizobuchi S Nakatsuka H Matsumi M Gofuku A Yokoyama M Morita K Nonimmersive virtual reality mirror visual feedback therapy and its application for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: an open-label pilot study Pain Med 2010 04 11 4 622 629 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.00819.x 20202141 PME819 Ortiz-Catalan M Guðmundsdóttir Rannveig A Kristoffersen MB Zepeda-Echavarria A Caine-Winterberger K Kulbacka-Ortiz K Widehammar C Eriksson K Stockselius A Ragnö Christina Pihlar Z Burger H Hermansson L Phantom motor execution facilitated by machine learning and augmented reality as treatment for phantom limb pain: a single group, clinical trial in patients with chronic intractable phantom limb pain Lancet 2016 12 10 388 10062 2885 2894 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31598-7 27916234 S0140-6736(16)31598-7 Kohl A Rief W Glombiewski JA Acceptance, cognitive restructuring, and distraction as coping strategies for acute pain J Pain 2013 03 14 3 305 315 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.12.005 23352770 S1526-5900(12)00963-7 Verhoeven K Crombez G Eccleston C Van Ryckeghem DML Morley S Van Damme S The role of motivation in distracting attention away from pain: an experimental study Pain 2010 05 149 2 229 234 10.1016/j.pain.2010.01.019 20188469 00006396-201005000-00013 Van Ryckeghem DM Van Damme S Eccleston C Crombez G The efficacy of attentional distraction and sensory monitoring in chronic pain patients: a meta-analysis Clin Psychol Rev 2018 02 59 16 29 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.10.008 29126746 S0272-7358(17)30027-2 Vlaeyen JWS Morley S Crombez G The experimental analysis of the interruptive, interfering, and identity-distorting effects of chronic pain Behav Res Ther 2016 11 86 23 34 10.1016/j.brat.2016.08.016 27614948 S0005-7967(16)30146-2 Todd J van Ryckeghem DML Sharpe L Crombez G Attentional bias to pain-related information: a meta-analysis of dot-probe studies Health Psychol Rev 2018 12 12 4 419 436 10.1080/17437199.2018.1521729 30205757 Crombez G Eccleston C Van Damme S Vlaeyen JWS Karoly P Fear-avoidance model of chronic pain: the next generation Clin J Pain 2012 07 28 6 475 483 10.1097/AJP.0b013e3182385392 22673479 00002508-201207000-00003