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

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

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006911.pub4

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Podcasts
Respuestas clínicas Cochrane
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Respuestas clínicas Cochrane

Topics

Temas

Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcomes*	Illustrative Comparative Risk (95% CI) __________________ Corresponding Risk __________________ Music intervention	№ of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
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)
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.

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

Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risk (95% CI) ____________________ Corresponding risk ____________________ Music intervention	№ of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
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)
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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

Comparison 4. Music therapy plus standard care versus music medicine plus standard care in adults

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet