Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intervenciones con música para mejorar los desenlaces psicológicos y físicos en personas con cáncer

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006911.pub4Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 12 octubre 2021see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Cáncer ginecológico, neurooncología y otros cánceres

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2022 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

  • Joke Bradt

    Correspondencia a: Department of Creative Arts Therapies, College of Nursing and Health Professions, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA

    [email protected]

  • Cheryl Dileo

    Department of Music Therapy and The Arts and Quality of Life Research Center, Boyer College of Music and Dance, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA

  • Katherine Myers-Coffman

    Department of Music, Molloy College, Rockville Centre, USA

  • Jacelyn Biondo

    Department of Creative Arts Therapies, College of Nursing and Health Professions, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA

    Department of Expressive Therapies, Graduate School of Arts and Social Sciences, Lesley University, Cambridge, USA

Contributions of authors

Background, objectives, criteria for considering studies: Bradt, Dileo
Search strategies, methods: Bradt (reviewed and approved by Dileo)
Database searches and handsearches: Bradt, Biondo, Dileo, Myers‐Coffman
Screening search results: Bradt, Biondo, Myers‐Coffman
Organising retrieval of papers: Bradt
Screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria: Bradt, Biondo, Myers‐Coffman
Appraising quality of papers: Bradt, Dileo, Biondo, Myers‐Coffman
Abstracting data from papers: Bradt, Biondo, Myers‐Coffman, Bradt
Writing to authors of papers for additional information: Bradt, Biondo, Myers‐Coffman
Providing additional data about papers: Bradt
Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: Bradt
Data management for the review: Bradt
Entering data into Review Manager (Review Manager 5 2020): Bradt, Biondo, Myers‐Coffman
RevMan statistical data: Bradt
Other statistical analysis not using RevMan: Bradt
Interpretation of data: Bradt, Dileo
Statistical inferences: Bradt
Writing the review: Bradt (reviewed and approved by Dileo, Biondo, Myers‐Coffman)
Securing funding for the review: Dileo (for original review)
Guarantor for the review (one author): Bradt
Person responsible for reading and checking review before submission: Bradt

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Drexel University, USA

    Drexel University provided financial support for a research assistant to assist with the update of this review

External sources

  • State of Pennsylvania Formula Fund, USA

Declarations of interest

Joke Bradt ‐ None known
Cheryl Dileo ‐ None known
Katherine Myers‐Coffman ‐ None known
Jacelyn Biondo ‐ None known

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank and acknowledge Clare Jess (Managing Editor), Jo Platt (Information Specialist) and Jo Morrison (Co‐ordinating Editor ) of  Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro‐oncology and Orphan Cancers (GNOC). We would also like to acknowledge the following research assistants for their help with screening, article retrieval, handsearching, data extraction, and data input: Patricia Gonzalez, Andi McGraw Hunt, and Patricia Winters, graduate assistants at Temple University, for their help with the original review; Minjung Shim, Kelly L By, Johanna Dwinells, and Karolina Bryl, research assistants at Drexel University, for their help with the 2016 update of the review; Brigette Schneible, research fellow at Drexel University, for her help with the current review; and Denise Grocke, Lucanne Magill and Aaron Teague for their contributions as authors on previous versions of this review.

The authors and Cochrane GNOC Team, are grateful to the following peer reviewers for their time and comments: Katja Boehm and Barbara Wheeler.

We would like to thank the Cystic Fibrosis Group for permission to modify their data extraction form.

This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to the Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro‐oncology and Orphan Cancer Group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2021 Oct 12

Music interventions for improving psychological and physical outcomes in people with cancer

Review

Joke Bradt, Cheryl Dileo, Katherine Myers-Coffman, Jacelyn Biondo

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006911.pub4

2016 Aug 15

Music interventions for improving psychological and physical outcomes in cancer patients

Review

Joke Bradt, Cheryl Dileo, Lucanne Magill, Aaron Teague

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006911.pub3

2011 Aug 10

Music interventions for improving psychological and physical outcomes in cancer patients

Review

Joke Bradt, Cheryl Dileo, Denise Grocke, Lucanne Magill

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006911.pub2

2008 Jan 23

Music interventions for improving psychological and physical outcomes in cancer patients

Protocol

Cheryl Dileo, Joke Bradt, Denise Grocke, Lucanne Magill

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006911

Differences between protocol and review

Disease‐free survival was listed in the protocol as a secondary outcome but was excluded in the review as per recommendation of the peer review.

We slightly altered the MEDLINE search strategy, removing the words 'compose' and 'composing' as text words because they resulted in hundreds of irrelevant returns.

We added the RILM Abstracts of Music Literature database to the search strategy as per recommendation of the peer review.

In the current update of the review, we decided to include studies that included a few participants (< 10% of total sample) with non‐cancer diagnoses (e.g. aplastic anemia). We reviewed all studies that were excluded in previous versions of this review to verify whether those studies should remain excluded due to the study population not meeting the eligibility criteria for this review. To ensure that the addition of these studies did not impact the magnitude of the effect size, a sensitivity analysis was added.

In the current review, we decided to keep the analyses separate for the adult participant studies and the pediatric participant studies.

In the current review, we edited the list of primary and secondary outcomes to give examples of possible outcome measures to those assessed.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Adult; Child; 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.

Study flow diagram.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

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 2

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

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

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

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

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone with adults, outcome: 1.1 Anxiety (STAI).

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone with adults, outcome: 1.1 Anxiety (STAI).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone with adults, outcome: 1.6 Depression.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone with adults, outcome: 1.6 Depression.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone with adults, outcome: 1.13 Pain.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone with adults, outcome: 1.13 Pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 1: Anxiety (STAI)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 1: Anxiety (STAI)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 2: Anxiety (non‐STAI (full version) measures)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 2: Anxiety (non‐STAI (full version) measures)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 3: Anxiety (intervention subgroup)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 3: Anxiety (intervention subgroup)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 4: Anxiety (music preference)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 4: Anxiety (music preference)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 5: Anxiety (music‐guided relaxation)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 5: Anxiety (music‐guided relaxation)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 6: Depression

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 6: Depression

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 7: Depression (intervention subgroup)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 7: Depression (intervention subgroup)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 8: Depression (music preference)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 8: Depression (music preference)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 9: Distress

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 9: Distress

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 10: Mood

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 10: Mood

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 11: Mood (intervention subgroup)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 11: Mood (intervention subgroup)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 12: Hope

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 12: Hope

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 13: Pain

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 13: Pain

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 14: Pain (intervention subgroup)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 14: Pain (intervention subgroup)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 15: Pain (music preference)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 15: Pain (music preference)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 16: Fatigue

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 16: Fatigue

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 17: Fatigue (intervention subgroup)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 17: Fatigue (intervention subgroup)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 18: Physical functioning

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 18: Physical functioning

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 19: Heart rate

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 19: Heart rate

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 20: Heart rate (music preference)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 20: Heart rate (music preference)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 21: Respiratory rate

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 21: Respiratory rate

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 22: Systolic blood pressure

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.22

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 22: Systolic blood pressure

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 23: Systolic blood pressure (music preference)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 23: Systolic blood pressure (music preference)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 24: Diastolic blood pressure

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.24

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 24: Diastolic blood pressure

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 25: Diastolic blood pressure (music preference)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.25

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 25: Diastolic blood pressure (music preference)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 26: Oxygen saturation

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.26

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 26: Oxygen saturation

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 27: Quality of life

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.27

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 27: Quality of life

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 28: Quality of life (intervention subgroup)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.28

Comparison 1: Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults, Outcome 28: Quality of life (intervention subgroup)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Music interventions plus standard care versus standard care alone in children, Outcome 1: Anxiety (STAI)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2: Music interventions plus standard care versus standard care alone in children, Outcome 1: Anxiety (STAI)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3: Music interventions plus standard care versus standard care plus placebo control in children, Outcome 1: Distress

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3: Music interventions plus standard care versus standard care plus placebo control in children, Outcome 1: Distress

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3: Music interventions plus standard care versus standard care plus placebo control in children, Outcome 2: Spiritual well‐being

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3: Music interventions plus standard care versus standard care plus placebo control in children, Outcome 2: Spiritual well‐being

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4: Music therapy plus standard care versus music medicine plus standard care in adults, Outcome 1: Anxiety

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4: Music therapy plus standard care versus music medicine plus standard care in adults, Outcome 1: Anxiety

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Summary of findings 1. Music intervention plus standard care compared to standard care alone for improving psychological and physical outcomes in adult cancer patients

Music intervention plus standard care compared to standard care alone for improving psychological and physical outcomes in adult cancer patients

Patient or population: adult cancer patients (≥ 18 years)
Setting: inpatient and outpatient cancer care
Intervention: music intervention (music therapy or music medicine) plus standard care
Comparison: standard care alone (i.e. usual cancer treatment as per the site's standard care protocol)

Outcomes*

Illustrative Comparative Risk
(95% CI)

__________________

Corresponding Risk

__________________

Music intervention

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Anxiety assessed with: Spielberger State Anxiety Index Scale (STAI)

Score range: 20 to 80. A lower score represents less anxiety.

Follow‐up: immediately post‐intervention

The mean anxiety in the music intervention group was 7.73 units less (10.02 less to 5.44 less) than in the standard care group.

1381
(17 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 2

Music intervention may result in a large reduction in anxiety. However, the evidence is very uncertain.

Depression

Follow‐up: immediately post‐intervention

The mean depression in the music intervention group was 0.41 standard deviations less (0.67 worse to 0.15 worse) than in the standard care group

1021
(12 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 3

Music intervention may result in a small to moderate reduction of depression. However, the evidence is very uncertain.

Mood

Follow‐up: immediately post‐intervention

The mean mood in the music intervention group was 0.53 standard deviations better (0.03 worse to 1.11 better) than in the standard care group

221
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 4

Music interventions may result in a moderate improvement in mood. However, the evidence is very uncertain.

Hope

Score range: 12 to 48. A higher score represents greater hope.

Follow‐up: immediately post‐intervention

The mean hope in the music intervention group was 3.19 units more (0.12 more to 6.25 more) than in the standard care group

53

(2 RCTS

⊕ ⊝ ⊝⊝

VERY LOW 1 7

Music intervention may result in a large increase in hope. However, the evidence is very uncertain.

Pain

Follow‐up: immediately post‐intervention

The mean pain in the intervention group was 0.67 standard deviations less (1.07 less to 0.26 less) than in the standard care group

632
(12 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 5

Music interventions may result in a moderate to large improvement in pain. However, the evidence is very uncertain.

Fatigue

Follow‐up: immediately post‐intervention

The mean fatigue in the music intervention group was 0.28 standard deviations less (0.46 less to 0.01 less) than in the standard care group

498
(10 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1

Music intervention may result in a slight reduction in fatigue.

Quality of Life

Follow‐up: immediately post‐intervention

The mean quality of life in the music intervention group was 0.88 standard deviations more (0.31 less to 2.08 more) than in the standard care group

573
(7 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 6

Music interventions may result in a large improvement in quality of life. However, the evidence is very uncertain.

*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

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: 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 certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 Downgraded two levels for high risk of bias. The majority of the trials were at high risk of bias because participants could not be blinded to the music intervention and outcome was measured using self‐report.

2 Downgraded two levels for very serious inconsistency across studies as evidenced by I2 = 93%.

3 Downgraded one level for serious inconsistency across studies as evidenced by I2 = 72%.

4 Downgraded one level for serious inconsistency across trials as evidenced by I2 = 70%.

5 Downgraded two levels for very serious inconsistency across trials as evidenced by I2 = 81%.

6 Downgraded two levels for very serious inconsistency across trials as evidenced by I2 = 97%.

7 Downgraded two level s for imprecision due to a small number of participants.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 1. Music intervention plus standard care compared to standard care alone for improving psychological and physical outcomes in adult cancer patients
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Summary of findings 2. Music intervention plus standard care compared to standard care alone for improving psychological and physical outcomes in paediatric cancer patients

Music intervention plus standard care compared to standard care alone for improving psychological and physical outcomes in pediatriccancer patients

Patient or population: pediatric cancer patients (< 18 years)
Setting: inpatient and outpatient cancer care
Intervention: music interventions (music therapy or music medicine) plus standard care
Comparison: standard care alone (i.e. usual cancer treatment as per the site's standard care protocol)

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risk (95% CI)

____________________

Corresponding risk

____________________

Music intervention

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Anxiety (STAI)

The score: 20 to 80. A lower score represents less anxiety.

Follow‐up: immediately post‐intervention

The mean anxiety in the music intervention group was 0.94 standard lower (1.9 lower to 0.03 higher)

79
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 2 3

Music intervention may result in a large reduction in anxiety.

Depression

not estimable

(0 studies)

‐

Mood

not estimable

(0 studies)

‐

Pain
assessed with: 0 to 10 NRS. A higher score represents more pain

Listening to pre‐recorded music resulted in less pain during and after lumbar puncture (during mean: 2.35, SD 1.9; after mean: 1.2, SD 1.36) than standard care (during mean: 5.65, SD 2.5; after mean: 3.0, SD 2.0 ).

40
(1 RCT)

⊕ ⊝ ⊝ ⊝

LOW 1 3

Fatigue

not estimable

(0 studies)

‐

Quality of Life

not estimable

(0 studies)

‐

Hope

not estimable

(0 studies)

‐

*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; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: 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 certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 Downgraded two levels for high risk of bias. These trials were at high risk of bias because participants could not be blinded to the music intervention and outcome was measured using self‐report.

2 Downgraded one level for serious inconsistency across studies as evidenced by I2 = 76%.

3 Downgraded two levels for imprecision due to a small number of participants.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Music intervention plus standard care compared to standard care alone for improving psychological and physical outcomes in paediatric cancer patients
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 1. Studies per primary outcomes

Outcome

Studies included in the meta‐analyses

State Anxiety

Binns‐Turner 2008; Bro 2019; Bulfone 2009; Cai 2001; Chen 2013; Chen 2020; Danhauer 2010; Ferrer 2005; Firmeza 2017; Harper 2001; Jin 2011; Karadag 2019; Li 2004; Li 2012; Lin 2011; Mou 2020; O'Callaghan 2012; Rossetti 2017; Smith 2001; Vachiramon 2013; Verstegen 2018; Wan 2009; Wren 2019; Yates 2015; Zhao 2008; Zhou 2015

Depression

Arruda 2016; Bates 2017; Cai 2001; Cassileth 2003; Chen 2020; Karadag 2019; Li 2012; Verstegen 2018; Wan 2009; Yates 2015; Zhou 2015

Distress

Clark 2006; Rossetti 2017

Mood

Beck 1989; Burrai 2014; Cassileth 2003; Moradian 2015; Ratcliff 2014

Hope

Arruda 2016; Verstegen 2016

Pain

Arruda 2016; Binns‐Turner 2008; Danhauer 2010; Fredenburg 2014a; Huang 2006; Letwin 2017; Li 2012; Reimnitz 2018; Verstegen 2016; Verstegen 2018; Wan 2009; Wren 2019

Fatigue

Bates 2017; Cassileth 2003; Chen 2020; Clark 2006; Ferrer 2005; Fredenburg 2014b; Moradian 2015; Reimnitz 2018; Rosenow 2014; Wren 2019

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Studies per primary outcomes
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 Anxiety (STAI) Show forest plot

17

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1.1 All studies

17

1381

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐7.73 [‐10.02, ‐5.44]

1.1.2 Sensitivity analysis (randomization method)

15

1121

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐7.83 [‐10.91, ‐4.76]

1.2 Anxiety (non‐STAI (full version) measures) Show forest plot

9

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

Subtotals only

1.2.1 All studies

9

882

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

‐0.76 [‐1.28, ‐0.25]

1.2.2 Sensitivity analysis (randomization method)

5

530

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

‐0.72 [‐1.67, 0.23]

1.2.3 Sensitivity analysis (< 10% non‐cancer excluded)

8

869

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

‐0.75 [‐1.30, ‐0.21]

1.3 Anxiety (intervention subgroup) Show forest plot

23

2003

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

‐0.86 [‐1.22, ‐0.50]

1.3.1 Music therapy studies

4

144

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

‐0.81 [‐1.16, ‐0.46]

1.3.2 Music medicine studies

19

1859

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

‐0.87 [‐1.28, ‐0.47]

1.4 Anxiety (music preference) Show forest plot

16

1590

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

‐0.82 [‐1.22, ‐0.41]

1.4.1 Patient‐preferred music

13

1288

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

‐0.81 [‐1.30, ‐0.32]

1.4.2 Researcher‐selected music

3

302

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

‐0.79 [‐1.19, ‐0.39]

1.5 Anxiety (music‐guided relaxation) Show forest plot

15

1334

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

‐0.93 [‐1.38, ‐0.47]

1.5.1 Music‐guided relaxation studies

4

476

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

‐1.61 [‐2.56, ‐0.65]

1.5.2 Listening to music only

11

858

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

‐0.67 [‐1.09, ‐0.24]

1.6 Depression Show forest plot

12

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

Subtotals only

1.6.1 All studies

12

1021

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

‐0.41 [‐0.67, ‐0.15]

1.6.2 Sensitivity analysis (randomization method)

10

779

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

‐0.32 [‐0.59, ‐0.04]

1.6.3 Sensitivity analysis (< 10% non‐cancer studies excluded)

11

1008

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

‐0.41 [‐0.68, ‐0.15]

1.6.4 Sensitivity analysis (outliers removed)

9

674

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

‐0.20 [‐0.36, ‐0.05]

1.7 Depression (intervention subgroup) Show forest plot

12

1021

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

‐0.41 [‐0.67, ‐0.15]

1.7.1 Music therapy studies

5

225

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

‐0.19 [‐0.46, 0.07]

1.7.2 Music medicine studies

7

796

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

‐0.53 [‐0.90, ‐0.17]

1.8 Depression (music preference) Show forest plot

7

708

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

‐0.55 [‐0.91, ‐0.19]

1.8.1 Patient‐preferred music

3

375

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

‐0.59 [‐1.26, 0.09]

1.8.2 Researcher‐selected music

4

333

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

‐0.53 [‐0.98, ‐0.07]

1.9 Distress Show forest plot

2

127

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

‐0.38 [‐1.43, 0.66]

1.10 Mood Show forest plot

4

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

Subtotals only

1.10.1 All studies

4

221

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

0.53 [‐0.03, 1.10]

1.10.2 Sensitivity analysis (randomization method)

3

177

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

0.68 [‐0.04, 1.39]

1.11 Mood (intervention subgroup) Show forest plot

4

221

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

0.53 [‐0.03, 1.10]

1.11.1 Music therapy studies

2

104

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

0.37 [‐0.13, 0.87]

1.11.2 Music medicine studies

2

117

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

0.73 [‐0.54, 1.99]

1.12 Hope Show forest plot

2

53

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.19 [0.12, 6.25]

1.13 Pain Show forest plot

12

1206

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

‐0.72 [‐1.01, ‐0.42]

1.13.1 All studies

12

632

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

‐0.67 [‐1.07, ‐0.26]

1.13.2 Sensitivity analysis (< 10% non‐cancer studies excluded)

9

574

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

‐0.77 [‐1.25, ‐0.29]

1.14 Pain (intervention subgroup) Show forest plot

12

632

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

‐0.67 [‐1.07, ‐0.26]

1.14.1 Music therapy studies

5

105

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

‐0.47 [‐0.86, ‐0.07]

1.14.2 Music medicine studies

7

527

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

‐0.81 [‐1.38, ‐0.24]

1.15 Pain (music preference) Show forest plot

8

567

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

‐0.84 [‐1.34, ‐0.33]

1.15.1 Patient‐preferred music

5

348

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

‐0.87 [‐1.65, ‐0.10]

1.15.2 Researcher‐selected music

3

219

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

‐0.74 [‐1.33, ‐0.14]

1.16 Fatigue Show forest plot

10

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

Subtotals only

1.16.1 All studies

10

498

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

‐0.28 [‐0.46, ‐0.10]

1.16.2 Sensitivity analysis (randomization method)

9

448

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

‐0.26 [‐0.45, ‐0.07]

1.16.3 Sensitivity analysis (< 10% non‐cancer studies excluded)

9

463

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

‐0.26 [‐0.44, ‐0.07]

1.17 Fatigue (intervention subgroup) Show forest plot

9

449

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

‐0.27 [‐0.46, ‐0.08]

1.17.1 Music therapy studies

6

256

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

‐0.36 [‐0.61, ‐0.12]

1.17.2 Music medicine studies

3

193

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

‐0.15 [‐0.43, 0.14]

1.18 Physical functioning Show forest plot

4

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

Subtotals only

1.18.1 All studies

4

493

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

0.78 [‐0.74, 2.31]

1.18.2 Sensitivity analysis (randomization method)

3

233

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

0.08 [‐0.18, 0.34]

1.19 Heart rate Show forest plot

11

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.19.1 All studies

11

1022

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.40 [‐5.58, ‐1.23]

1.19.2 Sensitivity analysis (randomization method)

9

772

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.37 [‐6.29, ‐2.44]

1.20 Heart rate (music preference) Show forest plot

10

972

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.65 [‐5.94, ‐1.35]

1.20.1 Patient‐preferred music

7

807

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.34 [‐6.06, ‐0.62]

1.20.2 Researcher‐selected music

3

165

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.47 [‐8.02, ‐0.91]

1.21 Respiratory rate Show forest plot

5

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.21.1 All studies

5

737

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.71 [‐1.18, ‐0.23]

1.21.2 Sensitivity analysis (randomization method)

4

537

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.18 [‐2.46, 0.11]

1.22 Systolic blood pressure Show forest plot

10

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.22.1 All studies

10

992

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.18 [‐6.70, ‐1.66]

1.22.2 Sensitivity analysis (randomization method)

8

742

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.50 [‐8.36, ‐0.64]

1.23 Systolic blood pressure (music preference) Show forest plot

9

942

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.76 [‐7.25, ‐2.26]

1.23.1 Patient‐preferred music

6

777

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.82 [‐7.90, ‐1.75]

1.23.2 Researcher‐selected music

3

165

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.71 [‐12.04, 2.63]

1.24 Diastolic blood pressure Show forest plot

10

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.24.1 All studies

10

992

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.34 [‐4.70, 0.01]

1.24.2 Sensitivity analysis (randomization method)

8

742

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.86 [‐6.01, ‐1.71]

1.25 Diastolic blood pressure (music preference) Show forest plot

9

942

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.21 [‐5.63, ‐0.80]

1.25.1 Patient‐preferred music

6

777

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.36 [‐6.46, ‐0.27]

1.25.2 Researcher‐selected music

3

165

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.51 [‐5.03, 0.02]

1.26 Oxygen saturation Show forest plot

2

252

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.59 [‐0.62, 1.80]

1.27 Quality of life Show forest plot

7

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

Subtotals only

1.27.1 All studies

7

573

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

0.88 [‐0.31, 2.08]

1.27.2 Sensitivity analysis (randomization method)

5

269

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

0.47 [0.06, 0.88]

1.28 Quality of life (intervention subgroup) Show forest plot

7

573

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

0.88 [‐0.31, 2.08]

1.28.1 Music therapy studies

4

160

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

0.40 [0.08, 0.71]

1.28.2 Music medicine studies

3

413

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

1.32 [‐1.02, 3.67]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Music intervention plus standard care versus standard care alone in adults
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. Music interventions plus standard care versus standard care alone in children

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

2.1 Anxiety (STAI) Show forest plot

2

79

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

‐0.94 [‐1.90, 0.03]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Music interventions plus standard care versus standard care alone in children
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 3. Music interventions plus standard care versus standard care plus placebo control in children

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

3.1 Distress Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐0.39, 0.26]

3.2 Spiritual well‐being Show forest plot

2

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

0.31 [‐0.11, 0.73]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Music interventions plus standard care versus standard care plus placebo control in children
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 4. Music therapy plus standard care versus music medicine plus standard care in adults

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

4.1 Anxiety Show forest plot

2

194

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.55 [‐7.13, 0.02]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Music therapy plus standard care versus music medicine plus standard care in adults
Ir a la tabla de la revisión