BACKGROUND: This is an update of the review published on the Cochrane Library in 2016, Issue 8. Having cancer may result in extensive emotional, physical and social suffering. Music interventions have been used to alleviate symptoms and treatment side effects in people with cancer. This review includes music interventions defined as music therapy offered by trained music therapists, as well as music medicine, which was defined as listening to pre-recorded music offered by medical staff.
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effects of music therapy and music medicine interventions for psychological and physical outcomes in people with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, Science Citation Index, CancerLit, CAIRSS, Proquest Digital Dissertations, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, the RILM Abstracts of Music Literature, http://www.wfmt.info/Musictherapyworld/ and the National Research Register. We searched all databases, except for the last two, from their inception to April 2020; the other two are no longer functional, so we searched them until their termination date. We handsearched music therapy journals, reviewed reference lists and contacted experts. There was no language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of music interventions for improving psychological and physical outcomes in adults and pediatric patients with cancer. We excluded patients undergoing biopsy and aspiration for diagnostic purposes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Where possible, we presented results in meta-analyses using mean differences and standardized mean differences. We used post-test scores. In cases of significant baseline difference, we used change scores. We conducted separate meta-analyses for studies with adult participants and those with pediatric participants. Primary outcomes of interest included psychological outcomes and physical symptoms and secondary outcomes included physiological responses, physical functioning, anesthetic and analgesic intake, length of hospitalization, social and spiritual support, communication, and quality of life (QoL) . We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 29 new trials for inclusion in this update. In total, the evidence of this review rests on 81 trials with a total of 5576 participants. Of the 81 trials, 74 trials included adult (N = 5306) and seven trials included pediatric (N = 270) oncology patients. We categorized 38 trials as music therapy trials and 43 as music medicine trials. The interventions were compared to standard care. Psychological outcomes The results suggest that music interventions may have a large anxiety-reducing effect in adults with cancer, with a reported average anxiety reduction of 7.73 units (17 studies, 1381 participants; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.02 to -5.44; very low-certainty evidence) on the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory scale (range 20 to 80; lower values reflect lower anxiety). Results also suggested a moderately strong, positive impact of music interventions on depression in adults (12 studies, 1021 participants; standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.41, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.15; very low-certainty evidence). We found no support for an effect of music interventions on mood (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.97; 5 studies, 236 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Music interventions may increase hope in adults with cancer, with a reported average increase of 3.19 units (95% CI 0.12 to 6.25) on the Herth Hope Index (range 12 to 48; higher scores reflect greater hope), but this finding was based on only two studies (N = 53 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Physical outcomes We found a moderate pain-reducing effect of music interventions (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.26; 12 studies, 632 adult participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, music interventions had a small treatment effect on fatigue (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.10; 10 studies, 498 adult participants; low-certainty evidence). The results suggest a large effect of music interventions on adult participants' QoL, but the results were highly inconsistent across studies, and the pooled effect size was accompanied by a large confidence interval (SMD 0.88, 95% CI -0.31 to 2.08; 7 studies, 573 participants; evidence is very uncertain). Removal of studies that used improper randomization methods resulted in a moderate effect size that was less heterogeneous (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.88, P = 0.02, I2 = 56%). A small number of trials included pediatric oncology participants. The findings suggest that music interventions may reduce anxiety but this finding was based on only two studies (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.9 to 0.03; very low-certainty evidence). Due to the small number of studies, we could not draw conclusions regarding the effects of music interventions on mood, depression, QoL, fatigue or pain in pediatric participants with cancer. The majority of studies included in this review update presented a high risk of bias, and therefore the overall certainty of the evidence is low. For several outcomes (i.e. anxiety, depression, pain, fatigue, and QoL) the beneficial treatment effects were consistent across studies for music therapy interventions delivered by music therapists. In contrast, music medicine interventions resulted in inconsistent treatment effects across studies for these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review indicates that music interventions compared to standard care may have beneficial effects on anxiety, depression, hope, pain, and fatigue in adults with cancer. The results of two trials suggest that music interventions may have a beneficial effect on anxiety in children with cancer. Too few trials with pediatric participants were included to draw conclusions about the treatment benefits of music for other outcomes. For several outcomes, music therapy interventions delivered by a trained music therapist led to consistent results across studies and this was not the case for music medicine interventions. Moreover, evidence of effect was found for music therapy interventions for QoL and fatigue but not for music medicine interventions. Most trials were at high risk of bias and low or very low certainty of evidence; therefore, these results need to be interpreted with caution.
OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate the currently available randomized clinical trials regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture in palliative care for cancer patients, hence, to provide sufficient evidences for the widespread use of acupuncture in cancer treatment.
METHODS: Two independent reviewers extracted data from all of the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of acupuncture in palliative care for cancer patients. Seven databases were searched from their respective inception to December 2010. All eligible trials identified were evaluated by two independent reviewers using the Jadad scale, and data from the articles were validated and extracted.
RESULTS: In total, 33 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The effects of acupuncture on different cancer-related aspects were shown, including chemotherapy or radiotherapy-induced side effects (13/33, 39.4%), cancer pain (6/33, 18.2%), post-operative urinary retention (4/33, 12.1%), quality of life (2/33, 6.1%), vasomotor syndrome (2/33, 6.1%), post-operative gastrointestinal dysfunction (2/33, 6.1%), prevention of prolonged postoperative ileus (2/33, 6.1%), joint symptoms (1/33, 3.0%), and immunomodulation (1/33, 3.0%).
CONCLUSIONS: The result of our systematic review suggested that the effectiveness of acupuncture in palliative care for cancer patients is promising, especially in reducing chemotherapy or radiotherapyinduced side effects and cancer pain. Acupuncture may be an appropriate adjunctive treatment for palliative care.
BACKGROUND: Massage as a complementary and alternative therapy has been associated with enhancing health and coping with treatment-related side effects in patients with breast cancer worldwide. This systematic review examined whether massage interventions provide any measurable benefit in breast cancer-related symptoms.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched for in PubMed, EMBASE.com and the Cochrane Library through June 2013. We evaluated the quality of the studies included by the Cochrane Handbook 5.2 standards and analyzed the data using the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.2 software.
RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs with a total of 950 participants were included. Compared with the control group, our meta-analysis showed that patients receiving regular use of massage had significantly greater reductions in anger and fatigue symptoms. However, there were no significant differences in depression, anxiety, pain, upper limb lymphedema, cortisol and health-related quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence demonstrates that there was mild evidence that massage may be a useful intervention in alleviating negative emotions and fatigue in patients with breast cancer. More trials with longer follow-up are needed to determine the exact long-term efficacy of this class of complementary and alternative medicine on breast cancer-related symptoms and quality of life.
PURPOSE: Bone cancer pain presents a clinical challenge with limitations of current treatments. Compound kushen injection (CKI) is a well-known traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulation in treatment of patients with bone cancer pain. The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of CKI for bone cancer pain.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in nine databases until December 2012 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CKI versus current western therapies for bone cancer pain. The primary outcome was total pain relief rate. The secondary outcomes were the quality of life and adverse events at the end of treatment course. The methodological quality of RCTs was assessed independently using six-item criteria according to the Cochrane Collaboration, and the level of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. All data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.1.0.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs with 521 patients from 2010 to 2012 were identified. Compared with radiotherapy or bisphosphonates, seven RCTs showed significant effects of CKI for improving pain relief in patients with bone cancer pain (n = 521, risk ratio (RR) = 1.25, 95 % CI (95 % confidence intervals (CI)), 1.13 to 1.38, p < 0.0001)), three RCTs for improving Karnofsky scoring (KPS) increase rate (n = 305, RR = 1.62, 95 % CI, 1.32 to 1.99, p < 0.00001), 1 RCT for increasing KPS scores (n = 78, mean difference (MD) = 10.43, 95 % CI 4.76 to 16.10, p = 0.0003). 4 RCTs reported adverse effects in both the treatment and control groups. The patients treated with CKI achieved statistically significant reductions of incidences of leukopenia (n = 276, RR = 0.32, 95 % CI, 0.21 to 0.47, p < 0.00001) and nausea (n = 78, RR = 0.15, 95 % CI, 0.06 to 0.34, p < 0.00001). No severe adverse events were found and no treatment was stopped because of adverse events of CKI in the treatment groups. However, the studies were deemed to have a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed positive but weak evidence of CKI for bone cancer pain because of the poor methodological quality and the small quantity of the included trials. Future rigorously designed RCTs are required.
Persistent pain after breast cancer treatment is prevalent, and not all patients respond sufficiently to pharmacological treatment. Pain is recognized as a multi-dimensional phenomenon, which includes psychological and social components, and several clinical trials have investigated the efficacy of psychosocial interventions on pain in cancer patients and survivors. Our aim was to systematically review and quantify the existing research on the effect of psychosocial interventions on pain in breast cancer patients and survivors. Two independent raters reviewed 474 abstracts for eligibility, leading to the identification of 26 independent and eligible studies published between 1983 and 2012, which were assessed for their methodological quality and subjected to meta-analytic evaluation. A total of 1786 participants were included in the analyses. A statistically significant and robust overall effect size was found across all included studies (Hedges g = 0.37, 95 % CI: 0.20-0.40; p < 0.001). However, the effect size was considerably smaller (0.21), when adjusted for possible publication bias. Furthermore, the results were heterogeneous, and when exploring the sources of heterogeneity, studies of higher methodological quality were found to yield a more conservative effect size (g = 0.21, 95 % CI: 0.02-0.41) than studies of poorer quality (g = 0.65, 95 % CI: 0.25-1.04). The results also indicated that patient educational approaches yielded a larger effect size (g = 0.64) than relaxation-based interventions (g = 0.31, 95 % CI: -0.05-0.67) and supportive group therapy (g = 0.17, 95 % CI: 0.02-0.32). Taken together, while suggestive of psychosocial intervention as an effective tool in the management of pain among breast cancer patients and survivors, the results should be interpreted as preliminary. The methodological quality of the existing research varied considerably, and only few studies had selected patients on the basis of the presence of pain and included pain as the primary outcome.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of oral Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in relieving pain secondary to bone metastases in patients.
METHODS: The searched electronic literature databases included both English and Chinese articles published in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Wanfang database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (up to December 2012). The studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CHM plus conventional treatment with conventional treatment alone for patients with pain secondary to bone metastases. The outcomes were the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the pain-relief rate and adverse events.
RESULTS: A total of 16 RCTs involving 1,008 patients were identified and analyzed. All of the included RCTs were associated with a moderate to high risk of bias. In the metaanalysis, CHM plus conventional treatment increased the pain-relief rate compared with the conventional treatment alone (OR, 2.59; 95% CI 1.95 to 3.45). In subgroup analysis, the pooled OR of the pain-relief rate of CHM plus conventional treatment compared with conventional treatment was 3.11 (95% CI 2.01 to 4.79) for CHM plus bisphosphonates, 2.24 (95% CI 1.33 to 3.78) for CHM plus analgesics, 2.28 (95% CI 1.09 to 4.79) for CHM plus radiotherapy, and 2.22 (95% CI 0.95 to 5.15) for CHM plus analgesics and bisphosphonates. The adverse events included nausea, vomiting, dizziness, fever, and constipation. No serious adverse events were reported in any of the included studies.
CONCLUSIONS: CHM interventions appear to have beneficial effects on pain secondary to bone metastases in patients. However, published efficacy trials are small in size to draw any firm conclusions.
PURPOSE: Previous systematic reviews have found patient education to be moderately efficacious in decreasing the intensity of cancer pain, but variation in results warrants analysis aimed at identifying which strategies are optimal.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken using a theory-based approach to classifying and comparing educational interventions for cancer pain. The reference lists of previous reviews and MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were searched in May 2012. Studies had to be published in a peer-reviewed English language journal and compare the effect on cancer pain intensity of education with usual care. Meta-analyses used standardized effect sizes (ES) and a random effects model. Subgroup analyses compared intervention components categorized using the Michie et al. (Implement Sci 6:42, 2011) capability, opportunity, and motivation behavior (COM-B) model.
RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials met the criteria. As expected, meta-analysis identified a small-moderate ES favoring education versus usual care (ES, 0.27 [-0.47, -0.07]; P = 0.007) with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 71 %). Subgroup analyses based on the taxonomy found that interventions using "enablement" were efficacious (ES, 0.35 [-0.63, -0.08]; P = 0.01), whereas those lacking this component were not (ES, 0.18 [-0.46, 0.10]; P = 0.20). However, the subgroup effect was nonsignificant (P = 0.39), and heterogeneity was not reduced. Factoring in the variable of individualized versus non-individualized influenced neither efficacy nor heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis follows a trend in using theory to understand the mechanisms of complex interventions. We suggest that future efforts focus on interventions that target patient self-efficacy. Authors are encouraged to report comprehensive details of interventions and methods to inform synthesis, replication, and refinement.
BACKGROUND: Psychological symptoms are associated with metastatic breast cancer. This is the basis for exploring the impact of psychological interventions on psychosocial and survival outcomes. One early study appeared to show significant survival and psychological benefits from psychological support while subsequent studies have revealed conflicting results. This review is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2007.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions on psychosocial and survival outcomes for women with metastatic breast cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO), online trials and research registers in June/July 2011. Further potentially relevant studies were identified from handsearching references of previous trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of psychological interventions, which recruited women with metastatic breast cancer. Outcomes selected for analyses were overall survival, psychological outcomes, pain, quality of life, condition-specific outcome measures, relationship and social support measures, and sleep quality. Studies were excluded if no discrete data were available on women with metastatic breast cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Where possible, authors were contacted for missing information. Data on the nature and setting of the intervention, relevant outcome data, and items relating to methodological quality were extracted. Meta-analyses was performed using a random-effects or fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model, depending on expected levels of heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS: Ten RCTs with 1378 women were identified. Of the seven RCTs on group psychological interventions, three were on cognitive behavioural therapy and four were on supportive-expressive group therapy. The remaining three studies were individual based and the types of psychological interventions were not common to either cognitive behavioural or supportive-expressive therapy. A clear pattern of psychological outcomes could not be discerned as a wide variety of outcome measures and durations of follow-up were used in the included studies. The overall effect of the psychological interventions across six studies, on one-year survival, favoured the psychological intervention group with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.99). Pooled data from four studies did not show any survival benefit at five-years follow-up (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.52). There was evidence of a short-term benefit for some psychological outcomes and improvement in pain scores.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Psychological interventions appear to be effective in improving survival at 12 months but not at longer-term follow-up, and they are effective in reducing psychological symptoms only in some of the outcomes assessed in women with metastatic breast cancer. However, findings of the review should be interpreted with caution as there is a relative lack of data in this field, and the included trials had reporting or methodological weaknesses and were heterogeneous in terms of interventions and outcome measures.
IMPORTANCE: Creative arts therapies (CATs) can reduce anxiety, depression, pain, and fatigue and increase quality of life (QOL) in patients with cancer. However, no systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining the effects of CAT on psychological symptoms among cancer patients has been conducted.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of CAT on psychological symptoms and QOL in cancer patients during treatment and follow-up and to determine whether the effect varied according to patient, intervention, and design characteristics.
EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched ERIC, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed, and Web of Science from database inception to January 2012. Studies included RCTs in which cancer patients were randomized to a CAT or control condition and anxiety, depression, pain, fatigue and/or QOL were measured pre- and post-intervention. Twenty-seven studies involving 1576 patients were included. We extracted data on effect sizes, moderators, and study quality. Hedges d effect sizes were computed, and random-effects models were used to estimate sampling error and population variance.
FINDINGS: During treatment, CAT significantly reduced anxiety (Δ = 0.28 [95% CI, 0.11-0.44]), depression (Δ = 0.23 [0.05-0.40]), and pain (Δ = 0.54 [0.33-0.75]) and increased QOL (Δ = 0.50 [0.25-0.74]). Pain was significantly reduced during follow-up (Δ = 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42-0.77]). Anxiety reductions were strongest for studies in which (1) a non-CAT therapist administered the intervention compared with studies that used a creative arts therapist and (2) a waiting-list or usual-care comparison was used. Pain reductions were largest during inpatient treatment and for homogeneous cancer groups in outpatient settings; significantly smaller reductions occurred in heterogeneous groups in outpatient settings.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Exposure to CAT can improve anxiety, depression, and pain symptoms and QOL among cancer patients, but this effect is reduced during follow-up.
PURPOSE: Pain is one of the most common, burdensome, and feared symptoms experienced by patients with cancer. American Pain Society standards for pain management in cancer recommend both pharmacologic and psychosocial approaches. To obtain a current, stable, and comprehensive estimate of the effect of psychosocial interventions on pain-an important clinical topic-we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies among adult patients with cancer published between 1966 and 2010.
METHODS: Three pairs of raters independently reviewed 1,681 abstracts, with a systematic process for reconciling disagreement, yielding 42 papers, of which 37 had sufficient data for meta-analysis. Studies were assessed for quality using a modified seven-item Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) coding scheme. Pain severity and interference were primary outcome measures.
RESULTS: Study participants (N = 4,199) were primarily women (66%) and white (72%). The weighted averaged effect size across studies for pain severity (38 comparisons) was 0.34 (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.46; P < .001), and the effect size for pain interference (four comparisons) was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.21 to 0.60; P < .001). Studies that monitored whether treatment was delivered as intended had larger effects than those that did not (P = .04).
CONCLUSION: Psychosocial interventions had medium-size effects on both pain severity and interference. These robust findings support the systematic implementation of quality-controlled psychosocial interventions as part of a multimodal approach to the management of pain in patients with cancer.
This is an update of the review published on the Cochrane Library in 2016, Issue 8. Having cancer may result in extensive emotional, physical and social suffering. Music interventions have been used to alleviate symptoms and treatment side effects in people with cancer. This review includes music interventions defined as music therapy offered by trained music therapists, as well as music medicine, which was defined as listening to pre-recorded music offered by medical staff.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess and compare the effects of music therapy and music medicine interventions for psychological and physical outcomes in people with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, Science Citation Index, CancerLit, CAIRSS, Proquest Digital Dissertations, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, the RILM Abstracts of Music Literature, http://www.wfmt.info/Musictherapyworld/ and the National Research Register. We searched all databases, except for the last two, from their inception to April 2020; the other two are no longer functional, so we searched them until their termination date. We handsearched music therapy journals, reviewed reference lists and contacted experts. There was no language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of music interventions for improving psychological and physical outcomes in adults and pediatric patients with cancer. We excluded patients undergoing biopsy and aspiration for diagnostic purposes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Where possible, we presented results in meta-analyses using mean differences and standardized mean differences. We used post-test scores. In cases of significant baseline difference, we used change scores. We conducted separate meta-analyses for studies with adult participants and those with pediatric participants. Primary outcomes of interest included psychological outcomes and physical symptoms and secondary outcomes included physiological responses, physical functioning, anesthetic and analgesic intake, length of hospitalization, social and spiritual support, communication, and quality of life (QoL) . We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS:
We identified 29 new trials for inclusion in this update. In total, the evidence of this review rests on 81 trials with a total of 5576 participants. Of the 81 trials, 74 trials included adult (N = 5306) and seven trials included pediatric (N = 270) oncology patients. We categorized 38 trials as music therapy trials and 43 as music medicine trials. The interventions were compared to standard care. Psychological outcomes The results suggest that music interventions may have a large anxiety-reducing effect in adults with cancer, with a reported average anxiety reduction of 7.73 units (17 studies, 1381 participants; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.02 to -5.44; very low-certainty evidence) on the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory scale (range 20 to 80; lower values reflect lower anxiety). Results also suggested a moderately strong, positive impact of music interventions on depression in adults (12 studies, 1021 participants; standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.41, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.15; very low-certainty evidence). We found no support for an effect of music interventions on mood (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.97; 5 studies, 236 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Music interventions may increase hope in adults with cancer, with a reported average increase of 3.19 units (95% CI 0.12 to 6.25) on the Herth Hope Index (range 12 to 48; higher scores reflect greater hope), but this finding was based on only two studies (N = 53 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Physical outcomes We found a moderate pain-reducing effect of music interventions (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.26; 12 studies, 632 adult participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, music interventions had a small treatment effect on fatigue (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.10; 10 studies, 498 adult participants; low-certainty evidence). The results suggest a large effect of music interventions on adult participants' QoL, but the results were highly inconsistent across studies, and the pooled effect size was accompanied by a large confidence interval (SMD 0.88, 95% CI -0.31 to 2.08; 7 studies, 573 participants; evidence is very uncertain). Removal of studies that used improper randomization methods resulted in a moderate effect size that was less heterogeneous (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.88, P = 0.02, I2 = 56%). A small number of trials included pediatric oncology participants. The findings suggest that music interventions may reduce anxiety but this finding was based on only two studies (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.9 to 0.03; very low-certainty evidence). Due to the small number of studies, we could not draw conclusions regarding the effects of music interventions on mood, depression, QoL, fatigue or pain in pediatric participants with cancer. The majority of studies included in this review update presented a high risk of bias, and therefore the overall certainty of the evidence is low. For several outcomes (i.e. anxiety, depression, pain, fatigue, and QoL) the beneficial treatment effects were consistent across studies for music therapy interventions delivered by music therapists. In contrast, music medicine interventions resulted in inconsistent treatment effects across studies for these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
This systematic review indicates that music interventions compared to standard care may have beneficial effects on anxiety, depression, hope, pain, and fatigue in adults with cancer. The results of two trials suggest that music interventions may have a beneficial effect on anxiety in children with cancer. Too few trials with pediatric participants were included to draw conclusions about the treatment benefits of music for other outcomes. For several outcomes, music therapy interventions delivered by a trained music therapist led to consistent results across studies and this was not the case for music medicine interventions. Moreover, evidence of effect was found for music therapy interventions for QoL and fatigue but not for music medicine interventions. Most trials were at high risk of bias and low or very low certainty of evidence; therefore, these results need to be interpreted with caution.
