-
Frontiers in Neural Circuits 2023Space Motion Sickness (SMS) is a syndrome that affects around 70% of astronauts and includes symptoms of nausea, dizziness, fatigue, vertigo, headaches, vomiting, and...
INTRODUCTION
Space Motion Sickness (SMS) is a syndrome that affects around 70% of astronauts and includes symptoms of nausea, dizziness, fatigue, vertigo, headaches, vomiting, and cold sweating. Consequences range from discomfort to severe sensorimotor and cognitive incapacitation, which might cause potential problems for mission-critical tasks and astronauts and cosmonauts' well-being. Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological countermeasures have been proposed to mitigate SMS. However, their effectiveness has not been systematically evaluated. Here we present the first systematic review of published peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological countermeasures to SMS.
METHODS
We performed a double-blind title and abstract screening using the online Rayyan collaboration tool for systematic reviews, followed by a full-text screening. Eventually, only 23 peer-reviewed studies underwent data extraction.
RESULTS
Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological countermeasures can help mitigate SMS symptoms.
DISCUSSION
No definitive recommendation can be given regarding the superiority of any particular countermeasure approach. Importantly, there is considerable heterogeneity in the published research methods, lack of a standardized assessment approach, and small sample sizes. To allow for consistent comparisons between SMS countermeasures in the future, standardized testing protocols for spaceflight and ground-based analogs are needed. We believe that the data should be made openly available, given the uniqueness of the environment in which it is collected.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021244131.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Space Flight; Space Motion Sickness; Vestibule, Labyrinth; Weightlessness
PubMed: 37396400
DOI: 10.3389/fncir.2023.1150233 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Motion sickness is a syndrome that occurs as a result of passive body movement in response to actual motion, or the illusion of motion when exposed to virtual and moving... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Motion sickness is a syndrome that occurs as a result of passive body movement in response to actual motion, or the illusion of motion when exposed to virtual and moving visual environments. The most common symptoms are nausea and vomiting. Antihistamines have been used in the management of motion sickness for decades, however studies have shown conflicting results regarding their efficacy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of antihistamines in the prevention and treatment of motion sickness in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 7 December 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in susceptible adults and children in whom motion sickness was induced under natural conditions such as air, sea and land transportation. We also included studies in which motion sickness was induced under experimental conditions (analysed separately). Antihistamines were included regardless of class, route or dosage and compared to no treatment, placebo or any other pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1) the proportion of susceptible participants who did not experience any motion sickness symptoms; 2) the proportion of susceptible participants who experienced a reduction or resolution of existing symptoms. Secondary outcomes were 1) physiological measures (heart rate, core temperature and gastric tachyarrhythmia (electrogastrography)) and 2) adverse effects (sedation, impaired cognition, blurred vision). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs (658 participants). Studies were conducted across seven countries, with an overall age range of 16 to 55 years. Motion sickness was induced naturally in six studies and experimentally in four studies (rotating chair). All the naturally induced studies only evaluated first-generation antihistamines (cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate). Risk of bias across the studies varied, with mostly low risk for random sequence generation and allocation concealment, and mostly high risk for selective reporting. Only the experimentally induced studies measured physiological parameters and only the naturally induced studies evaluated adverse effects. There were no studies that clearly assessed the paediatric population. Antihistamines versus placebo or no treatment Antihistamines are probably more effective than placebo at preventing motion sickness symptoms under natural conditions (symptoms prevented: 25% placebo; 40% antihistamines) (risk ratio (RR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.66; 3 studies; 240 participants) (moderate-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on preventing motion sickness under experimental conditions (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.83; 2 studies; 62 participants) (very low-certainty). No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia under experimental conditions (mean difference (MD) -2.2, 95% CI -11.71 to 7.31; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. When compared to placebo, antihistamines may be more likely to cause sedation (sedation: 44% placebo; 66% antihistamines) (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.02; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty); they may result in little or no difference in blurred vision (blurred vision: 12.5% placebo; 14% antihistamines) (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.48; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty); and they may result in little or no difference in terms of impaired cognition (impaired cognition: 33% placebo; 29% antihistamines) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty). Antihistamines versus scopolamine The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on preventing motion sickness under natural conditions when compared to scopolamine (symptoms prevented: 81% scopolamine; 71% antihistamines) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.16; 2 studies; 71 participants) (very low-certainty). No studies were performed under experimental conditions. No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on heart rate under natural conditions (narrative report, 1 study; 20 participants; "No difference in pulse frequency"; very low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. When compared to scopolamine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on sedation (sedation: 21% scopolamine; 30% antihistamines) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.07 to 9.25; 2 studies; 90 participants) (very low-certainty) and on blurred vision (narrative report: not a significant difference; 1 study; 51 participants; very low-certainty). No studies evaluated impaired cognition. Antihistamines versus antiemetics Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in the prevention of motion sickness under experimental conditions (MD -0.20, 95% CI -10.91 to 10.51; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). The evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision as the sample size is small and the confidence interval crosses the line of no effect. No studies assessed the effects of antihistamines versus antiemetics under natural conditions. No studies reported results on the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia (MD 4.56, 95% CI -3.49 to 12.61; 1 study; 42 participants) (low-certainty). No studies reported results for any other physiological measures. No studies evaluated sedation, impaired cognition or blurred vision. One study reported physiological data for this outcome, evaluating gastric tachyarrhythmia specifically. Antihistamines may result in little or no difference in gastric tachyarrhythmia (MD 4.56, 95% CI -3.49 to 12.61; 1 study; 42 participants; low-certainty evidence). This evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision as the sample size is small and the confidence interval crosses the line of no effect. Antihistamines versus acupuncture The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of antihistamines on the prevention of motion sickness under experimental conditions when compared to acupuncture (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.57; 1 study; 100 participants) (very low-certainty). This study did not assess the prevention of motion sickness under natural conditions, nor the resolution of existing motion sickness symptoms. There was no study performed under natural conditions. Physiological measures and adverse effects were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is probably a reduction in the risk of developing motion sickness symptoms under naturally occurring conditions of motion when using first-generation antihistamines, in motion sickness-susceptible adults, compared to placebo. Antihistamines may be more likely to cause sedation when compared to placebo. No studies evaluated the treatment of existing motion sickness, and there are few data on the effect of antihistamines in children. The evidence for all other outcomes and comparisons (versus scopolamine, antiemetics and acupuncture) was of low or very low certainty and we are therefore uncertain about these effects of antihistamines.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antiemetics; Child; Cinnarizine; Dimenhydrinate; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Middle Aged; Motion Sickness; Scopolamine Derivatives; Young Adult
PubMed: 36250781
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012715.pub2 -
Experimental Brain Research Aug 2014The parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) has been implicated in the development of visually induced motion sickness. The objective of this study was to perform a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) has been implicated in the development of visually induced motion sickness. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of visually induced motion sickness on validated parameters of PNS tone. Methods followed PRISMA recommendations. Controlled trials reporting validated measures of PNS tone in visually induced motion sickness in healthy adults were included. One reviewer performed the screening of articles and data extraction, and two reviewers independently performed methodological evaluation. Data were synthesised using standardised mean differences (SMDs) for all relevant outcomes using a random-effects model. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plots and Egger's test. The search strategy identified seven citations comprising 237 healthy individuals. The mean quality score was 4/10 (range 3-7). There was no difference between baseline PNS tone between individuals who developed visually induced motion sickness and those that did not. Visually induced motion sickness (VIMS)-sensitive individuals had a reduction in PNS tone, following exposure to the stimulus (mean weighted SMD = -0.45, 95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.27, Z = -4.8, p < 0.0001). There was no evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias. These data suggest that baseline PNS parameters do not provide a useful measure of predicting the probability of developing visually induced motion sickness. However, a fall in PNS tone, as indicated by cardiac activity, is characteristic in sensitive individuals. Further work is needed to characterise these responses in clinical populations, in conjunction with improvements and standardisation in study design.
Topics: Humans; Motion Sickness; Parasympathetic Nervous System; Photic Stimulation
PubMed: 24792503
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-014-3964-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2011This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 3, 2004 and previously updated in 2007 and 2009.Motion sickness, the discomfort... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 3, 2004 and previously updated in 2007 and 2009.Motion sickness, the discomfort experienced when perceived motion disturbs the organs of balance, may include symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, pallor, cold sweats, hypersalivation, hyperventilation and headaches. The control and prevention of these symptoms has included pharmacological, behavioural and complementary therapies. Although scopolamine (hyoscine) has been used in the treatment and prevention of motion sickness for decades, there have been no systematic reviews of its effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of scopolamine versus no therapy, placebo, other drugs, behavioural and complementary therapy or two or more of the above therapies in combination for motion sickness in persons (both adults and children) without known vestibular, visual or central nervous system pathology.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 14 April 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All parallel-arm, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on scopolamine versus no therapy, placebo, other drugs, behavioural and complementary therapy or two or more of the above therapies in combination. We considered outcomes relating to the prevention of onset or treatment of clinically-defined motion sickness, task ability and psychological tests, changes in physiological parameters and adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data from the studies using standardised forms. We assessed study quality. We expressed dichotomous data as odds ratio (OR) and calculated a pooled OR using the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 35 studies considered potentially relevant, 14 studies enrolling 1025 subjects met the entry criteria. Scopolamine was administered via transdermal patches, tablets or capsules, oral solutions or intravenously. Scopolamine was compared against placebo, calcium channel antagonists, antihistamine, methscopolamine or a combination of scopolamine and ephedrine. Studies were generally small in size and of varying quality.Scopolamine was more effective than placebo in the prevention of symptoms. Comparisons between scopolamine and other agents were few and suggested that scopolamine was superior (versus methscopolamine) or equivalent (versus antihistamines) as a preventative agent. Evidence comparing scopolamine to cinnarizine or combinations of scopolamine and ephedrine is equivocal or minimal.Although sample sizes were small, scopolamine was no more likely to induce drowsiness, blurring of vision or dizziness compared to other agents. Dry mouth was more likely with scopolamine than with methscopolamine or cinnarizine.No studies were available relating to the therapeutic effectiveness of scopolamine in the management of established symptoms of motion sickness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The use of scopolamine versus placebo in preventing motion sickness has been shown to be effective. No conclusions can be made on the comparative effectiveness of scopolamine and other agents such as antihistamines and calcium channel antagonists. In addition, we identified no randomised controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of scopolamine in the treatment of established symptoms of motion sickness.
Topics: Adult; Child; Ephedrine; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Motion Sickness; Muscarinic Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scopolamine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21678338
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002851.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2004Motion sickness - the discomfort experienced when perceived motion disturbs the organs of balance - may include symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, pallor, cold sweats,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Motion sickness - the discomfort experienced when perceived motion disturbs the organs of balance - may include symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, pallor, cold sweats, hypersalivation, hyperventilation and headaches. The control and prevention of these symptoms have included pharmacological, behavioural and complementary therapies. Although scopolamine has been used in the treatment and prevention of motion sickness for decades, there have been no systematic reviews of its effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of scopolamine versus no therapy, placebo, other drugs, behavioural and complementary therapy or two or more of the above therapies in combination for motion sickness in persons (both adults and children) without known vestibular, visual or central nervous system pathology.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2003), MEDLINE (OVID, 1966 to March Week 1 2004), EMBASE (1974 to 2004) CINAHL (Ovid, 1982 to March Week 1 2004) and reference lists of retrieved studies were searched for relevant studies. No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All parallel-arm, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on scopolamine versus no therapy, placebo, other drugs, behavioural and complementary therapy or two or more of the above therapies in combination were included. Outcomes relating to the prevention of onset or treatment of clinically-defined motion sickness, task ability and psychological tests, changes in physiological parameters and adverse effects were considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data from the studies were extracted independently by two authors using standardised forms. Study quality was assessed. Dichotomous data were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and a pooled OR was calculated using the random effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 27 studies considered potentially relevant, 12 studies enrolling 901 subjects met the entry criteria. Scopolamine was administered via transdermal patches, tablets or capsules, oral solutions or intravenously. Scopolamine was compared against placebo, calcium channel antagonists, antihistamine, meth-scopolamine or a combination of scopolamine and ephedrine. Studies were generally small in size and of varying quality. Scopolamine was more effective than placebo in the prevention of symptoms. Comparisons between scopolamine and other agents were few and suggested that scopolamine was superior (versus meth-scopolamine) or equivalent (versus antihistamines) as a preventative agent. Evidence comparing scopolamine to cinnarizine or combinations of scopolamine and ephedrine is equivocal or minimal. Although sample sizes were small, scopolamine was no more likely to induce drowsiness, blurring of vision or dizziness compared to other agents. Dry mouth was more likely with scopolamine than with meth-scopolamine or cinnarizine. No studies were available relating to the therapeutic effectiveness of scopolamine in the management of established symptoms of motion sickness.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS
The use of scopolamine versus placebo in preventing motion sickness has been shown to be effective. No conclusions can be made on the comparative effectiveness of scopolamine and other agents such as antihistamines and calcium channel antagonists. In addition, no randomised controlled trials were identified that examined the effectiveness of scopolamine in the treatment of established symptoms of motion sickness.
Topics: Humans; Motion Sickness; Muscarinic Antagonists; Scopolamine
PubMed: 15266468
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002851.pub2 -
Journal of Vestibular Research :... 2020Individuals seem to be differently susceptible to motion-related sickness (motion sickness, visually induced sickness etc.). Investigations of the reasons for these...
BACKGROUND
Individuals seem to be differently susceptible to motion-related sickness (motion sickness, visually induced sickness etc.). Investigations of the reasons for these different susceptibilities have revealed many potential factors that could predict individual susceptibility to motion-related sickness.
OBJECTIVE
This paper attempts to conduct a comprehensive literature review on inter-individual predictors of susceptibility to motion-related sickness using systematic approaches.
METHODS
After a systematic literature research, titles and abstracts of 1778 publications were screened for relevance. Reference lists of selected publications were searched for additional studies. This procedure yielded 184 relevant publications.
RESULTS
The identified predictors were clustered into demographic, physiological and psychological aspects. Among these predictors, the factors gender, length of velocity storage and anxiety showed the greatest predictive power. In addition, individual susceptibility to motion-related sickness is also to a large extent dependent on the degree of habituation to the aversive stimulus.
CONCLUSIONS
Some of the identified influencing factors seem to have different effects on physically and visually induced motion sickness. More research is needed to close gaps, especially on predictive factors of visually induced motion sickness.
Topics: Age Factors; Anxiety; Disease Susceptibility; Female; Functional Laterality; Habituation, Psychophysiologic; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Motion Sickness; Predictive Value of Tests; Sex Factors; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32623410
DOI: 10.3233/VES-200702 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2007Motion sickness - the discomfort experienced when perceived motion disturbs the organs of balance - may include symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, pallor, cold sweats,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Motion sickness - the discomfort experienced when perceived motion disturbs the organs of balance - may include symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, pallor, cold sweats, hypersalivation, hyperventilation and headaches. The control and prevention of these symptoms have included pharmacological, behavioural and complementary therapies. Although scopolamine (hyoscine) has been used in the treatment and prevention of motion sickness for decades, there have been no systematic reviews of its effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of scopolamine versus no therapy, placebo, other drugs, behavioural and complementary therapy or two or more of the above therapies in combination for motion sickness in persons (both adults and children) without known vestibular, visual or central nervous system pathology.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (OVID, 1966 to May 2007), EMBASE (1974 to May 2007) CINAHL (OVID, 1982 to May 2007) and reference lists of retrieved studies were searched for relevant studies. No language restrictions were applied. The date of the last search was May 2007.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All parallel-arm, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on scopolamine versus no therapy, placebo, other drugs, behavioural and complementary therapy or two or more of the above therapies in combination were included. Outcomes relating to the prevention of onset or treatment of clinically-defined motion sickness, task ability and psychological tests, changes in physiological parameters and adverse effects were considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data from the studies were extracted independently by two authors using standardised forms. Study quality was assessed. Dichotomous data were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and a pooled OR was calculated using the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 35 studies considered potentially relevant, 14 studies enrolling 1025 subjects met the entry criteria. Scopolamine was administered via transdermal patches, tablets or capsules, oral solutions or intravenously. Scopolamine was compared against placebo, calcium channel antagonists, antihistamine, methscopolamine or a combination of scopolamine and ephedrine. Studies were generally small in size and of varying quality. Scopolamine was more effective than placebo in the prevention of symptoms. Comparisons between scopolamine and other agents were few and suggested that scopolamine was superior (versus methscopolamine) or equivalent (versus antihistamines) as a preventative agent. Evidence comparing scopolamine to cinnarizine or combinations of scopolamine and ephedrine is equivocal or minimal. Although sample sizes were small, scopolamine was no more likely to induce drowsiness, blurring of vision or dizziness compared to other agents. Dry mouth was more likely with scopolamine than with methscopolamine or cinnarizine. No studies were available relating to the therapeutic effectiveness of scopolamine in the management of established symptoms of motion sickness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The use of scopolamine versus placebo in preventing motion sickness has been shown to be effective. No conclusions can be made on the comparative effectiveness of scopolamine and other agents such as antihistamines and calcium channel antagonists. In addition, no randomised controlled trials were identified that examined the effectiveness of scopolamine in the treatment of established symptoms of motion sickness.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Motion Sickness; Muscarinic Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scopolamine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 17636710
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002851.pub3 -
Experimental Brain Research Jul 2023This qualitative systematic review presents an overview of the state of the research relating to visual motion hypersensitivity (VMH) and offers a reference tool for... (Review)
Review
This qualitative systematic review presents an overview of the state of the research relating to visual motion hypersensitivity (VMH) and offers a reference tool for future studies in the field. The study set out to identify and collate articles investigating risk groups with aberrant responses to visual motion as compared to healthy control groups, presenting evidence for risk factors associated with visual motion hypersensitivity. Data were synthesized into the state of the research and analyzed in the context of the clinical characteristics of each risk factor. Literature searches were performed on Medline Ovid, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cinahl, identifying a total of 586 studies of which 54 were finally included. Original articles published between the dates of commencement for each database and 19th January 2021 were included. JBI critical appraisal tools were implemented for each corresponding article type. In total, the following number of studies was identified for each respective risk factor: age (n = 6), migraines (n = 8), concussions (n = 8), vestibular disorders (n = 13), psychiatric conditions (n = 5), and Parkinson's disease (n = 5). Several studies described VMH as the primary concern (n = 6), though these primarily included patients with vestibulopathies. There were considerable differences in the nomenclature employed to describe VMH, depending largely on the investigating group. An overview of investigated risk factors and their evaluation methods was presented in a Sankey diagram. Posturography was the most implemented methodology but due to diverse measurements meta-analyses were not possible. One may however note that while the easily implemented Vestibular Ocular Motor Screening (VOMS) was designed for concussed patients, it may prove useful for other risk groups.
Topics: Humans; Vestibular Diseases; Motion; Brain Concussion; Mental Disorders; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 37341755
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-023-06652-3 -
Nurse Education Today Sep 2023Viewers can watch 360-degree videos from any angle, like a panorama, and experience the virtual environment directly. Recently, there has been a growing interest in... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Viewers can watch 360-degree videos from any angle, like a panorama, and experience the virtual environment directly. Recently, there has been a growing interest in immersive and interactive technologies in education, and the use of 360-degree videos has become popular. This systematic review was conducted to present the current use of 360-degree videos in nursing education.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
In addition to screening the Google Scholar, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and EBSCO databases, we also performed hand searching.
REVIEW METHODS
Relevant keywords were used to identify trials published in the above-mentioned databases from inception to March 1, 2023. In the first step, the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the retrieved studies were independently reviewed by two authors according to the inclusion criteria. Studies on which there was disagreement were reviewed by all authors, and a consensus decision was reached. The data from the studies included in the review were analyzed and reported using the PRISMA 2020 checklist.
RESULTS
Twelve articles that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. It was determined that 360-degree video scenarios used in nursing education were mostly related to mental health nursing, and the videos were mostly viewed through head-mounted displays, without any interactive features. Most difficulties encountered in the use of these videos were related to motion sickness. The main implications of the reviewed studies were that 360-degree videos contributed to the development of students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes and that the use of these videos was recommended.
CONCLUSIONS
As an innovative application the use of 360-degree videos in nursing education was examined from various perspectives in this review. The results showed that the use of such videos was convenient and effective for nursing education.
Topics: Humans; Students, Nursing; Clinical Competence; Education, Nursing; Educational Status
PubMed: 37390520
DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105886 -
Clinical Therapeutics Nov 2010Transdermal scopolamine (TDS) is a potential long-acting prophylactic antiemetic initially developed to prevent motion sickness. TDS is a centrally acting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Transdermal scopolamine (TDS) is a potential long-acting prophylactic antiemetic initially developed to prevent motion sickness. TDS is a centrally acting anticholinergic agent that was approved in 2001 by the US Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Although TDS has been reported to be clinically efficacious in the prevention of PONV, several adverse events (AEs), such as sedation, dry mouth, blurred vision, central cholinergic syndrome, and confusion (particularly in elderly patients with mild cognitive impairment), are potential concerns.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy and tolerability of TDS in the prevention of PONV in adults.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials in adults that compared the effects of TDS and placebo on postoperative nausea, vomiting, and PONV was conducted in March 2009, and an update was conducted in July 2010. Without any language restrictions, a search with the following terms was performed: postoperative, postoperative, postanesthe*, postanaesthe*, post-anesthe*, post-anaesthe*, anesthesia, anaesthesia, surgery, surgeries, surgical, nausea, vomiting, emesis, retching, scopolamine, and hyoscine. Identified studies were then hand-searched for further relevant literature.
RESULTS
Data from 25 randomized controlled trials were analyzed (N = 3298). In the postanesthesia care unit, TDS was associated with a significantly reduced risk for postoperative nausea compared with placebo (relative risk [RR] = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.98; P = 0.03). TDS was also associated with a significantly reduced risk for postoperative nausea (RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.73; P < 0.001), postoperative vomiting (RR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.61-0.76; P < 0.001), and PONV (RR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.88; P = 0.001) during the first 24 hours after the start of anesthesia. TDS appeared to be effective compared with placebo in the prevention of postoperative nausea when treatment was initiated the night before (early application) (RR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75; P < 0.001) or on the day of surgery (late application) (RR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.79; P < 0.001). TDS was associated with a higher prevalence of visual disturbances at 24 to 48 hours compared with placebo (RR = 3.35; 95% CI, 1.78-6.32). Analyses of confusion and other AEs did not show a significant association with TDS.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review and metaanalysis, TDS was associated with significant reductions in PONV with both early and late patch application during the first 24 hours after the start of anesthesia. TDS was associated with a higher prevalence of visual disturbances at 24 to 48 hours after surgery, but no other AEs, compared with placebo.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Antiemetics; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Scopolamine
PubMed: 21118734
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.11.014