A bibliometric review published this year counted the literature on virtual reality exposure therapy: 76 publications in 2015, 281 in 2025, an annual growth rate of about 14%. Nearly four times as many papers in ten years.
It is a good number for a slide and a dangerous number for a purchasing decision. The two are worth separating.
What the number says
It says the field is no longer marginal. Ten years ago, proposing virtual reality in a clinical meeting was a conversation about science fiction; today there is enough literature for a systematic review to have work to do.
It also says where it is concentrated: graded exposure in anxiety disorders and post-traumatic stress is by far the most studied area. That is where the protocols, randomised trials and meta-analyses are.
What the number does not say
It does not say the results are good. Publication volume and evidence quality are different axes. A field can grow quickly because small studies are easy to publish, with thirty participants and no active control group.
It does not say it applies to what you want to do. Most of this literature is about therapeutic exposure — environments built to confront a specific fear gradually, run by a psychologist, inside a protocol. That is a very different thing from an 84-year-old man watching Porto's riverside on a Thursday afternoon.
We keep that distinction explicit ourselves, and it gives a whole article its name: virtual reality and mental health are two different things.
Citing the exposure literature to justify a relaxation session is the same manoeuvre as citing morphine trials to sell tea. Both are taken by mouth.
What to do with it in a purchasing decision
Three questions any supplier should answer without fidgeting:
- Are the studies you are showing me about the same use you are proposing? Therapeutic exposure, distraction during a procedure and meaningful activity in dementia are three separate literatures.
- What is the product registered for? RVer is a Class I medical device (base product) with Infarmed. The registration covers the base product — modules under development are not covered, and we say so everywhere, including where it does not help the sale.
- What does the supplier claim in writing? An efficacy claim printed in a brochure is a regulatory claim, not a marketing line. If it is there, it has to be supported.
The position we take
RVer does not claim to treat, to reduce symptoms or to replace care. It is a virtual reality system for clinical use, used by clinical teams in pain, rehabilitation, anxiety, cognitive stimulation, palliative care and mental health settings. What it is for, in which patient and at which moment, is decided by the clinician.
The growth of the literature is good news for the field. It is not proof about a product — not even ours.
Source: systematic review and bibliometric analysis of clinical applications and research trends in virtual reality exposure therapy, Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2026.