Visuospatial imagery-competing task interventions for reducing intrusive memories following real-world trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
In brief
Brief Tetris-like tasks reduced post-trauma intrusive memories by seven a week
Across five randomized trials involving 359 adults, brief visuospatial tasks after trauma reduced intrusive memories by about seven episodes per week compared with control, with moderate-certainty evidence. PTSD symptoms also improved, but evidence was less certain; only five trials contributed to the main result, so larger independent studies are needed before this is considered an established treatment.
- Journal
- Frontiers in psychiatry (Q1)
- Published
- 13 October 2026
- Study design
- Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
- Authors
- Moayed A Allahim, Sultan A Alsallal, Ibrahim A Almohaimeed, Abdulmajeed A Alfouzan, Ali S Alrashed, Rena Y Abualjamal, et al.
- PMID
- 42947909
- DOI
- 10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1925949
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Psychiatry and Mental Health (paper of the day, 30 October 2026): Meta-analysis finds trauma intervention reduces intrusive memories
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intrusive memories are a hallmark of PTSD and predict its course, making the early post-trauma period a critical window for prevention. Visuospatial imagery-competing task interventions (ICTI) - brief Tetris-like gameplay after a memory reactivation cue - are grounded in the working memory interference hypothesis and show strong laboratory effects. The only prior RCT synthesis in real-world trauma identified three eligible studies, all rated low certainty. No pre-registered review has synthesised RCT evidence for visuospatial ICTI exclusively in real-world trauma using intrusive memory frequency as the primary outcome. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the pooled effect of visuospatial ICTI on intrusive memory frequency in real-world trauma; examine whether an explicit memory reactivation cue moderates this effect; evaluate effects on PTSD severity, depression, anxiety, adverse events, and attrition; and identify gaps to inform future trial design. METHODS: Seven databases were searched from inception to March 2026 for RCTs of visuospatial ICTI in adults exposed to real-world DSM-5 Criterion A trauma. The primary outcome was intrusive memory frequency via prospective daily diary. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I, certainty with GRADE. Random-effects meta-analysis pooled raw mean differences for parallel-group RCTs with compatible diary data. Registered on PROSPERO (CRD420261336501); reported per PRISMA 2020. RESULTS: Of 818 records identified, 13 studies (9 RCTs, 4 non-randomised) met eligibility criteria. Five parallel-group RCTs (n=359) were pooled for the primary outcome: ICTI reduced intrusive memories by 6.98 fewer episodes/week versus control (95% CI -9.84 to -4.13; I2 = 21.9%), moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias). PTSD severity also favoured ICTI (MD -2.42, 95% CI -4.40 to -0.44), low certainty due to inconsistency and indirectness. Depression and anxiety could not be meta-analysed due to measurement heterogeneity. No serious adverse events were attributed to ICTI; attrition was generally low. Non-pooled evidence was broadly consistent, though one VR-based trial and one crossover trial in chronic PTSD found no benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Visuospatial ICTI produces a clinically interpretable, moderate-certainty reduction in intrusive memory frequency after real-world trauma, with low-certainty but favourable effects on PTSD severity. The evidence base remains limited to five pooled RCTs. ICTI should be considered a promising targeted intervention rather than an established treatment, pending larger independent trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261336501, identifier CRD420261336501.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.