The Efficacy and Therapeutic Alliance of Augmented Reality Exposure Therapy in Treating Adults With Phobic Disorders: Systematic Review

Background Phobic disorders are characterized by excessive fear of a stimulus that can affect the quality of a patient’s life. The lifetime prevalence in adults is 7.7% to 12.5%. The current literature provides evidence-based inferences about the effectiveness of in-vivo exposure therapy (IVET) in treating phobia. However, this method can put the therapist and the client in danger, with high drop out and refusal rates. A newer approach for exposure therapy using augmented reality technology is under assessment. Objective This systematic review investigated the novel technology’s efficacy, cost-efficacy, and therapeutic alliance in treating adults with phobia. Methods An extensive search was conducted using 4 major databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and Scopus) using a comprehensive list of synonyms for augmented reality exposure therapy (ARET) and phobic disorders. The search targeted any randomized control trial testing ARET in adults with phobic disorders up to August 8, 2022. Results A total of 6 studies were included, with 208 participants providing results. Studies investigating the efficacy of ARET compared to no intervention showed significant results (P<.05) in the ARET group improvement. Head-to-head comparative studies comparing ARET to IVET showed no significant difference (P>.05) in the effectiveness and therapeutic alliance between both therapies. Further, the results demonstrated that the ARET group had a better long-term effect than IVET, with the ability to put the patients in more situations to face the feared object. Conclusions The current data suggest clinically significant efficacy and a promising therapeutic alliance of ARET. However, no data are available investigating the cost-effectiveness of ARET. Further research is warranted to ascertain ARET’s cost-effectiveness and examine its efficacy in other populations and anxiety conditions.


Information sources
6 Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies.Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted.


Search strategy 7 Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used. Selection process 8 Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

Data collection process
9 Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

Data items 10a
List and define all outcomes for which data were sought.Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.


10b List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g.participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources).Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.

Study risk of bias assessment
11 Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.


Effect measures 12 Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g.risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.

Synthesis methods
13a Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g.tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)).


13b Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions. 13c Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses. 13d Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s).If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.


13e Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g.subgroup analysis, meta-regression). 13f Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results.-

Reporting bias assessment
14 Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).

Certainty assessment
15 Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.

Study selection
16a Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram.


16b Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.

Study characteristics
17 Cite each included study and present its characteristics.

Risk of bias in studies
18 Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.

Results of individual studies
19 For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g.confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.

Results of syntheses 20a
For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies. 20b Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted.If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g.confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity.If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect.


20c Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results. 20d Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results. Reporting biases 21 Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.

Certainty of evidence
22 Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed. The above table represents the PRISMA checklist to assess and critically review a systematic review.The above table was filled out based on the insight about the included items.This systematic review fulfilled most of the PRISMA checklist items.Thus, this review can be considered a good quality review to be taken into consideration.

Table 8 .
PRISMA Checklist to appraise a systematic review by(Page et al. 2021).
*It is a dissertation Project, so it can be considered a rapid review rather than a systematic one since no other reviewers are other than myself.