Cited by 282Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesDigital Mental Health Interventions

Inferiority or Even Superiority of Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy in Phobias?—A Systematic Review and Quantitative Meta-Analysis on Randomized Controlled Trials Specifically Comparing the Efficacy of Virtual Reality Exposure to Gold Standard in vivo Exposure in Agoraphobia, Specific Phobia, and Social Phobia

Open access
Wechsler, Theresa F., Kümpers, Franziska, Mühlberger, Andreas·2019·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Background: Convincing evidence on Virtual Reality (VR) exposure for phobic anxiety disorders has been reported. However, the benchmark for phobia treatment is in vivo exposure as gold standard. For direct treatment comparisons, the control of confounding variables is essential. Therefore, the comparison of VR and in vivo exposure in studies applying an equivalent amount of exposure in both treatments is necessary. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of reports published until June 2019. Inclusion criteria covered diagnosis of Specific Phobia, Social Phobia, or Agoraphobia, and a randomized-controlled design with an equivalent amount of exposure in VR and in vivo. We qualitatively reviewed participants’ characteristics, materials, and treatment procedures of all included studies. For quantitative synthesis, we calculated Hedges’ g effect sizes for treatment effects of VR exposure, in vivo exposure, and the comparison of VR to in vivo exposure over all studies and separately for studies on each diagnosis. Results: Nine studies (n = 371) were included, four on Specific Phobia, three on Social Phobia, and two on Agoraphobia. VR and in vivo exposure both showed large, significant effect sizes. The comparison of VR to in vivo exposure revealed a small, but non-significant effect size favoring in vivo (g = –0.20). Specifically, effect sizes for Specific Phobia (g = –0.15) and Agoraphobia (g = –0.01) were non-significant, only for Social Phobia we found a significant effect size favoring in vivo (g = –0.50). Except for Agoraphobia, effect sizes varied across studies from favoring VR to favoring in vivo exposure. Conclusions: We found no evidence, that VR exposure is significantly less efficacious than in vivo exposure in Specific Phobia and Agoraphobia. The wide range of study specific effect sizes especially in Social Phobia indicates a high potential of VR, but also a need for a deeper investigation and empirical examination of relevant working mechanisms. In Social Phobia, a combination of VR exposure with cognitive interventions and the realization of virtual social interactions targeting central fears might have advantages. Considering the advantages of VR exposure, its dissemination should be emphasized. Improvements in technology and procedures might even yield superior effects in future.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01758

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Drummond D. C. Tiffany S. T. Glautier S. Remington B. (eds.). (1995). The Wiley Series in Clinical Psychology. Addictive Behavior: Cue Exposure Theory and Practice. Chichester: Wiley.
  2. Forsyth J. P. Fusé T. Acheson D. T. (2008). Interoceptive exposure for panic disorder, in Cognitive Behavior Therapy: Applying Empirically Supported Techniques in Your Practice, 2nd edn, eds Fisher J. E. O'Donohue W. T. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 296– 308.
  3. Heuett B. L. Heuett K. B. (2011). Virtual reality therapy: a means of reducing public speaking anxiety. Int. J. Human. Soc. Sci. 1, 1– 6. Retrieved from: http://www.ijhssnet.com/journal/index/514:vol-1-no-16-november-2011abstract1&catid=16:journal-abstract
  4. Lenhard W. Lenhard A. (2014). Computation of Effect Sizes. 10.13140/RG.2.1.3478.4245 Retrieved from: https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html (accessed July 22, 2019). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wechsler, T. F., Kümpers, F., & Mühlberger, A.
Affiliations
University of Regensburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Wechsler, Theresa F.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2019-09-10
Volume
10
Pages
1758-1758
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2959888472
Cited by
282
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 23
FWCI
2.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
virtual reality exposure therapy, in vivo exposure, phobia treatment, agoraphobia, specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, anxiety disorders, treatment efficacy comparison, exposure therapy, cognitive intervention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review