Virtual Reality Exposure in the Treatment of Panic Disorder With Agoraphobia: A Case Study

In this work we present a case example of the use of virtual reality exposure for the treatment of panic disorder with agoraphobia. The assessment protocol and procedure (including a baseline period) and the cognitive-behavioral treatment program are described. The clinical measures were categorized into target behaviors, panic and agoraphobia measures, global functioning, and general psychopathology measures. The patient’s expectations and satisfaction with regard to the virtual treatment were also assessed. The results showed an important reduction in all clinical measures after treatment with virtual exposure and the patient reached the therapeutic goals established during the pretreatment assessment. The patient also reported a good acceptance of virtual exposure. The goals achieved in the virtual environment generalized to real agoraphobic situations and to other real situations not treated. Three-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up assessments were conducted and long-term therapeutic gains were maintained.     

Comparing acceptance and refusal rates of virtual reality exposure vs. in vivo exposure by patients with specific phobias.

The present survey explored the acceptability of virtual reality (VR) exposure and in vivo exposure in 150 participants suffering from specific phobias. Seventy-six percent chose VR over in vivo exposure, and the refusal rate for in vivo exposure (27%) was higher than the refusal rate for VR exposure (3%). Results suggest that VR exposure could help increase the number of people who seek exposure therapy for phobias.     

Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index?

In meta-analysis, the usual way of assessing whether a set of single studies is homogeneous is by means of the Q test. However, the Q test only informs meta-analysts about the presence versus the absence of heterogeneity, but it does not report on the extent of such heterogeneity. Recently, the I(2) index has been proposed to quantify the degree of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. In this article, the performances of the Q test and the confidence interval around the I(2) index are compared by means of a Monte Carlo simulation. The results show the utility of the I(2) index as a complement to the Q test, although it has the same problems of power with a small number of studies.