↓ Skip to main content

Virtual restorative environment therapy as an adjunct to pain control during burn dressing changes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
241 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Virtual restorative environment therapy as an adjunct to pain control during burn dressing changes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0878-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlotte Small, Robert Stone, Jane Pilsbury, Michael Bowden, Julian Bion

Abstract

The pain of a severe burn injury is often characterised by intense background pain, coupled with severe exacerbations associated with essential procedures such as dressing changes. The experience of pain is affected by patients' psychological state and can be enhanced by the anxiety, fear and distress caused by environmental and visual inputs. Virtual Reality (VR) distraction has been used with success in areas such as burns, paediatrics and oncology. The underlying principle of VR is that attention is diverted from the painful stimulus by the use of engaging, dynamic 3D visual content and associated auditory stimuli. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies undertaken during VR distraction from experimental pain have demonstrated enhancement of the descending cortical pain-control system. The present study will evaluate the feasibility of introducing a novel VR system to the Burns Unit at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham for dressing changes: virtual restorative environment therapy (VRET). The study will also explore the system's impact on pain during and after the dressing changes compared to conventional analgesia for ward-based burn dressing changes. A within-subject crossover design will be used to compare the following three conditions: 1. Interactive VRET plus conventional analgesics. 2. Passive VRET with conventional analgesics. 3. Conventional analgesics alone. Using the Monte Carlo method, and on the basis of previous local audit data, a sample size of 25 will detect a clinically significant 33 % reduction in worst pain scores experienced during dressing changes. The study accrual rate is currently slower than predicted by previous audits of admission data. A review of the screening log has found that recruitment has been limited by the nature of burn care, the ability of burn inpatients to provide informed consent and the ability of patients to use the VR equipment. Prior to the introduction of novel interactive technologies for patient use, the characteristics and capabilities of the target population needs to be evaluated, to ensure that the interface devices and simulations are usable. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN23330756 . Date of Registration 25 February 2014.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Chile 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 236 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 17%
Student > Bachelor 29 12%
Researcher 21 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Other 52 22%
Unknown 63 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 21%
Psychology 36 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 12%
Computer Science 11 5%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Other 43 18%
Unknown 62 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2016.
All research outputs
#4,373,252
of 8,610,582 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,444
of 2,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,089
of 231,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#73
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,610,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,354 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.