Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

نقش موسیقی‌درمانی در درمان افسردگی

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004517.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 16 noviembre 2017see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Trastornos mentales comunes

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Sonja Aalbers

    Social Work and Arts Therapies, University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden, Netherlands

    Clinical, Neuro & Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

  • Laura Fusar‐Poli

    Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

  • Ruth E Freeman

    Psychiatry, Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

  • Marinus Spreen

    School of Social Work and Art Therapies, Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden, Netherlands

  • Johannes CF Ket

    Medical Library, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

  • Annemiek C Vink

    Music Therapy Dept., ArtEZ School of Music, Enschede, Netherlands

  • Anna Maratos

    Arts Therapies, Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

  • Mike Crawford

    Department of Psychological Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

  • Xi‐Jing Chen

    CAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing, China

  • Christian Gold

    Correspondencia a: GAMUT ‐ The Grieg Academy Music Therapy Research Centre, Uni Research Health, Uni Research, Bergen, Norway

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

Review Maratos 2008
Idea of the review: Maratos.

First review author: Maratos

Writing the review: Maratos, Crawford.
Designing study protocol: Maratos, Gold.
Handsearching journals: Maratos, Gold.
Extracting study data: Maratos, Crawford, Wang.
Performing analysis: Maratos, Crawford, Wang.

Review Aalbers 2017
Idea of updating the review: Vink, Aalbers.

First review author and co‐ordinator of the current review: Aalbers.

Writing the review: Aalbers, Fusar‐Poli, Freeman, Ket, Gold (reviewed and approved by Vink, Spreen, Maratos, Crawford, Chen).
Peparing the Background: Aalbers, Freeman.
Determining Objectives, criteria for considering studies: Aalbers, Freeman, Maratos, Gold.
Developing search strategies, methods: Ket, Aalbers.
Conducting database searches and other searches: Ket, Aalbers.
Screening search results: Aalbers, Freeman.
Screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria: Aalbers, Freeman.
Appraising quality of papers: Aalbers, Vink, Spreen.
Extracting study data: Aalbers, Freeman.
Assessing risk of bias: Aalbers, Freeman.
Writing to authors of papers for additional information: Aalbers.
Providing additional data about papers: Aalbers.
Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: Aalbers; Freeman.
Managing data for the review: Aalbers, Freeman, Fusar‐Poli, Vink, Gold.
Entering data into Review Manager: Aalbers, Fusar‐Poli, Gold.
Analysing RevMan statistical data: Aalbers, Fusar‐Poli, Gold.
Performing other statistical analysis not using RevMan: Gold, Spreen.
Interpreting data: Aalbers, Fusar‐Poli, Gold, Vink, Spreen, Crawford.
Making statistical inferences: Aalbers, Fusar‐Poli, Gold, Spreen.
Serving as guarantor for the review (one author): Aalbers.
Taking responsibility for reading and checking the review before submission: Aalbers.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

  • Sogn og Fjordane University College, Norway.

  • School of Social Work and Arts Therapies, Stenden University of Applied Sciences Leeuwarden, Netherlands.

    Time, translation of a Chinese study report and supervising the PhD project

  • Clinical, Neuro & Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

    Supervising the PhD project

  • Music Therapy, Artez School of Music, Enschede, Netherlands.

    Supervising the review project

  • Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.

External sources

  • The Research Council of Norway, Norway.

Declarations of interest

SA: none known.
LF‐Pi: none known.
REF: none known.
MS: none known.
JCFK: none known.
ACV: none known.
AM: none known.
MC: none known.
X‐JC: I am a music therapist.
CG: I am a co‐author of one included study. I am a clinically trained music therapist and an associate editor of the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group. I am an editor of the Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, where one included trial was published, and have been involved in trials that included, but were not specifically focused on, people with depressive disorders.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank study authors Yadira Albornoz and Penchaya Atiwannapat for providing additional information concerning music therapy intervention from their respective studies; Vera Brandes and Mariette Broersen for providing their study reports; content experts for responding to our requests for information about possible ongoing studies; Sarah Dawson, Trials Search Co‐ordinator for the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) Group, for undertaking searches for this review; Jaakko Erkkilä for providing additional information concerning his trial and valuable comments on an earlier version of this review; Sarah Davis, Editorial Assistant for the CCMD Group, for her kind assistance; Stenden University of Applied Sciences for support and full translation of a Chinese study into English; Jessica Sharp, Managing Editor for the CCMD Group, for her kind assistance, guidance, and support throughout the review process; Erik Scherder of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam for assisting throughout the review process and reviewing the final version of the review; Seng Kuong Ung for translating a Chinese study into English; Xu Wang for contributing to the first review; and Kun Zhao for sending Chinese full texts and translating Chinese abstracts into English.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Nov 16

Music therapy for depression

Review

Sonja Aalbers, Laura Fusar‐Poli, Ruth E Freeman, Marinus Spreen, Johannes CF Ket, Annemiek C Vink, Anna Maratos, Mike Crawford, Xi‐Jing Chen, Christian Gold

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004517.pub3

2008 Jan 23

Music therapy for depression

Review

Anna Maratos, Christian Gold, Xu Wang, Mike Crawford

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004517.pub2

2003 Oct 20

Music therapy for depression

Protocol

C Maratos A and Gold, Anna Maratos, Xu Wang, Mike Crawford

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004517

Differences between protocol and review

In compliance with developments in systematic review methods since publication of the first version of this review (Maratos 2008), we have made a distinction between primary and secondary outcomes. To avoid lack of balance and the possibility of bias, we added adverse events as a primary outcome (Higgins 2015). We added anxiety as a secondary outcome because anxiety is a common comorbidity with depression (Gotlib 2014). We examined clinician‐rated and patient‐reported depression separately to retain both sources of information and because many studies reported both; the Cochrane Group approved this change. We commented on the quality of the body evidence using GRADE profile software and included 'Summary of findings' tables as recommended by Higgins and colleagues (Higgins 2015). We submitted these protocol amendments and received approval before we began work on the review update.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Adult; Humans;

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

PRISMA flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 1 Severity of depression symptoms, clinician‐rated (primary outcome; high=poor).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 1 Severity of depression symptoms, clinician‐rated (primary outcome; high=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 2 Severity of depression symptoms, patient‐reported (primary outcome; high=poor).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 2 Severity of depression symptoms, patient‐reported (primary outcome; high=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 3 Any adverse event.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 3 Any adverse event.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 4 Functioning (high=good).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 4 Functioning (high=good).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 5 Quality of life (high=good).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 5 Quality of life (high=good).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 6 Leaving the study early.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 6 Leaving the study early.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 7 Anxiety (high=poor).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 7 Anxiety (high=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 8 Self‐esteem (high=good).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison), Outcome 8 Self‐esteem (high=good).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Music therapy versus psychological therapy, Outcome 1 Severity of depressive symptoms, clinician‐rated (primary outcome; high=poor).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Music therapy versus psychological therapy, Outcome 1 Severity of depressive symptoms, clinician‐rated (primary outcome; high=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Music therapy versus psychological therapy, Outcome 2 Severity of depressive symptoms, patient‐reported (primary outcome; high=poor).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Music therapy versus psychological therapy, Outcome 2 Severity of depressive symptoms, patient‐reported (primary outcome; high=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Music therapy versus psychological therapy, Outcome 3 Quality of life (high=good).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Music therapy versus psychological therapy, Outcome 3 Quality of life (high=good).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Music therapy versus psychological therapy, Outcome 4 Leaving the study early.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Music therapy versus psychological therapy, Outcome 4 Leaving the study early.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Active music therapy versus receptive music therapy, Outcome 1 Severity of depressive symptoms, clinician‐reported (primary outcome; high=poor).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Active music therapy versus receptive music therapy, Outcome 1 Severity of depressive symptoms, clinician‐reported (primary outcome; high=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Active music therapy versus receptive music therapy, Outcome 2 Severity of depressive symptoms, patient‐reported (primary outcome; high=poor).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Active music therapy versus receptive music therapy, Outcome 2 Severity of depressive symptoms, patient‐reported (primary outcome; high=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Active music therapy versus receptive music therapy, Outcome 3 Quality of life (high=good).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Active music therapy versus receptive music therapy, Outcome 3 Quality of life (high=good).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Active music therapy versus receptive music therapy, Outcome 4 Leaving the study early.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Active music therapy versus receptive music therapy, Outcome 4 Leaving the study early.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Music therapy plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU for depression (primary comparison)

Music therapy plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU

Patient or population: individuals with depression
Setting: any setting
Intervention: music therapy plus treatment as usual
Comparison: treatment as usual

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with treatment as usual

Risk with music therapy

Depressive symptoms

(clinician‐rated) (various scales)

Up to 3 months

Mean clinician‐rated depressive symptoms

in the intervention group were

SMD 0.98 SD lower (1.69 lower to 0.27 lower).

‐

219
(3 RCTs; 1 CCT)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATEa

Lower score equals a better outcome.

SMD corresponds to a large effect size.

Depressive symptoms

(patient‐reported) (various scales)

Up to 3 months

Mean patient‐reported depressive symptoms

in the intervention group were

SMD 0.85 SD lower (1.37 lower to 0.34 lower).

‐

142
(3 RCTs; 1 CCT)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATEa

Lower score equals a better outcome.

SMD corresponds to a large effect size.

Any adverse events

Up to 3 months

Study population

OR 0.45
(0.02 to 11.46)

79
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOWb

22 per 1000

10 per 1000
(0 to 203)

Functioning (GAF)

Up to 3 months

Mean functioning in the intervention group was

SMD 0.51 SD higher (0.02 higher to 1 higher).

‐

67
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOWb

Higher score equals a better outcome.

SMD corresponds to a moderate effect size.

Quality of life (RAND‐36)

Up to 3 months

Mean quality of life in the intervention group was

SMD 0.32 SD higher (0.17 lower to 0.80 higher).

‐

67
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOWb

Higher score equals a better outcome.

Leaving the study early

Up to 3 months

Study population

OR 0.49
(0.14 to 1.70)

293
(5 RCTs; 1 CCT)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATEa

65 per 1000

33 per 1000
(10 to 106)

Anxiety (HADS‐A)

Up to 3 months

Mean anxiety in the intervention group was

SMD 0.74 SD lower (1.40 lower to 0.08 lower).

‐

195
(2 RCTs; 1 CCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOWa,c

Lower score equals a better outcome.

SMD corresponds to a moderate effect size.

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CCT: controlled clinical trial; CI: confidence interval; GAF: Global Assessment of Functioning scale; HADS‐A: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ‐ Anxiety; OR: odds ratio; RAND‐36: health‐related quality of life survey distributed by RAND; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio; SD: standard deviation; SMD: standardised mean difference.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

aDowngraded one level for unclear randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, missing study protocol.

bDowngraded two levels for wide confidence intervals, although adequately powered, well‐performed trial.
cDowngraded one level for variation effect sizes, non‐ or small overlap confidence intervals, high heterogeneity.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Music therapy plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU for depression (primary comparison)
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Summary of findings 2. Music therapy versus psychological treatment for depression

Music therapy versus psychological treatment for depression

Patient or population: adults with depression
Setting: any setting
Intervention: music therapy
Comparison: psychological therapy (counselling, cognitive‐behavioural therapy)

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with psychological treatment

Risk with music therapy

Depressive symptoms

(clinician‐rated) (MADRS)

Up to 3 months

Mean clinician‐rated depressive symptoms

in the intervention group was

SMD 0.78 SD lower (2.36 lower to 0.81 higher).

‐

11
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOWa,b

Lower score equals better outcome.

SMD corresponds to a large effect size.

Depressive symptoms

(patient‐reported) (various scales)

Up to 3 months

Mean patient‐reported depressive symptoms

in the intervention group were

SMD 1.28 SD lower (3.57 lower to 1.02 higher).

‐

131
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOWa,c

Lower score equals better outcome.

SMD corresponds to a large effect size.

Any adverse events ‐ not reported

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Functioning ‐ not reported

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Quality of life (Thai RAND‐36)

Up to 3 months

Mean quality of life

in the intervention group was

SMD 1.31 SD higher (0.36 lower to 2.99 higher).

‐

11
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOWa,b

Higher score equals better outcome.

Leaving the study early

Up to 3 months

Study population

OR 0.17
(0.02 to 1.49)

157
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATEa

35 per 1000

9 per 1000
(1 to 77)

Anxiety ‐ not reported

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; MADRS: Montgomery‐Åsberg Depression Rating Scale; OR: odds ratio; RAND‐36: health‐related quality of life survey distributed by RAND; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio; SD: standard deviation; SMD: standardised mean difference.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

aDowngraded one level for limitations in design such as unclear allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, missing protocol.

bDowngraded two levels for small sample size.

cDowngraded one level for non‐overlap of confidence intervals, high heterogeneity (P < 0.00001); I2 = 96%.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Music therapy versus psychological treatment for depression
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Summary of findings 3. Active music therapy versus receptive music therapy for depression

Active music therapy versus receptive music therapy for depression

Patient or population: adults with depression
Setting: any setting
Intervention: active music therapy
Comparison: receptive music therapy

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with receptive music therapy

Risk with active music therapy

Depressive symptoms

(clinician‐rated) (MADRS)

Up to 3 months

Mean clinician‐rated depressive symptoms

in the intervention group were

SMD 0.52 SD lower (1.87 lower to 0.83 higher).

‐

9
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOWa,b

Lower score equals a better outcome.

Depressive symptoms (patient‐reported) (TDI)

Up to 3 months

Mean patient‐reported depressive symptoms

in the intervention group were

SMD 0.01 SD lower (1.33 lower to 1.3 higher).

‐

9
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOWa,b

Lower score equals a better outcome.

Any adverse events ‐ not reported

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Functioning ‐ not reported

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Quality of life (SF‐36 Thai)

Up to 3 months

Mean quality of life

in the intervention group was

SMD 0.24 SD lower (1.57 lower to 1.08 higher).

‐

9
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOWa,b

Higher score equals a better outcome.

Leaving the study early

Up to 3 months

Study population

OR 0.27
(0.01 to 8.46)

10
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOWa,b

200 per 1000

63 per 1000
(2 to 679)

Anxiety ‐ not reported

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; MADRS: Montgomery‐Åsberg Depression Rating Scale; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio; SD: standard deviation; SF‐36: Short Form‐36; SMD: standardised mean difference; TDI: Thai Depression Inventory.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

aDowngraded one level for limitations in design such as unclear allocation concealment, blinding, missing protocol.

bDowngraded two levels for small sample size.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. Active music therapy versus receptive music therapy for depression
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Severity of depression symptoms, clinician‐rated (primary outcome; high=poor) Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

4

219

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.98 [‐1.69, ‐0.27]

1.2 medium‐term (up to 6 months)

1

64

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.38 [‐0.87, 0.12]

2 Severity of depression symptoms, patient‐reported (primary outcome; high=poor) Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

4

142

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.85 [‐1.37, ‐0.34]

3 Any adverse event Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 medium‐term (up to 6 months)

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Functioning (high=good) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 medium‐term (up to 6 months)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Quality of life (high=good) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

1

67

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.32 [‐0.17, 0.80]

5.2 medium‐term (up to 6 months)

1

64

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.26 [‐0.23, 0.76]

6 Leaving the study early Show forest plot

6

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

6

293

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.49 [0.14, 1.70]

6.2 medium‐term (up to 6 months)

1

79

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.44 [0.13, 1.53]

7 Anxiety (high=poor) Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

3

195

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.74 [‐1.40, ‐0.08]

7.2 medium‐term (up to 6 months)

1

64

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐0.90, 0.10]

8 Self‐esteem (high=good) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Music therapy plus TAU versus TAU alone (primary comparison)
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. Music therapy versus psychological therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Severity of depressive symptoms, clinician‐rated (primary outcome; high=poor) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 medium‐term (up to 6 months)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Severity of depressive symptoms, patient‐reported (primary outcome; high=poor) Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

4

131

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.28 [‐3.57, 1.02]

2.2 medium‐term (up to 6 months)

1

11

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.68 [‐2.26, 0.89]

3 Quality of life (high=good) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 medium‐term (up to 6 months)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Leaving the study early Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

4

137

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.17 [0.02, 1.49]

4.2 medium‐term (up to 6 months)

1

14

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.11 [0.01, 1.92]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Music therapy versus psychological therapy
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 3. Active music therapy versus receptive music therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Severity of depressive symptoms, clinician‐reported (primary outcome; high=poor) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 medium‐term (up to 6 months)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Severity of depressive symptoms, patient‐reported (primary outcome; high=poor) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 medium‐term (up to 6 months)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Quality of life (high=good) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 medium‐term (up to 6 months)

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Leaving the study early Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 short‐term (up to 3 months)

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 medium‐term (up to 6 months)

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Active music therapy versus receptive music therapy
Ir a la tabla de la revisión