EVIDENCE LIBRARY
Coronary-Angiography VR Trial’s Anxiety Finding Changed After Baseline Adjustment
A randomized trial compared VR added to usual care, which could include benzodiazepines. The adjusted and unadjusted primary analyses did not give the same conclusion.
A randomized trial compared VR added to usual care, which could include benzodiazepines. The adjusted and unadjusted primary analyses did not give the same conclusion.
The reported comparison
Ninety-nine patients with elevated anxiety were included. The intervention added two VR sessions before angiography, while controls received usual care.
The unadjusted preprocedural anxiety comparison did not show a difference. After adjustment for baseline anxiety, the intervention favored VR by about 0.9 points. Secondary outcomes did not show significant differences.
Keep the analysis conditions
Reporting only the adjusted benefit would hide the original null comparison; reporting only the null would omit the adjusted result. The paper also cautioned about small subgroups and unmeasured expectations.
Because usual care could include benzodiazepines, the trial was not VR versus complete absence of medication or a proof of safe benzodiazepine replacement. Its evidence concerns subjective preprocedural anxiety under a specific protocol. It cannot establish reduced clinical complications, a universal dose-sparing effect, or identical benefit across indications.
Source paper
Original analysis of the supplied journal article, identified as PMC12301777.