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.
BACKGROUND: A huge clinical research database on adjuvant cancer treatment has verified improvements in breast cancer outcomes such as recurrence and mortality rates. On the other hand, adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy with chemotherapy and radiotherapy impacts on quality of life due to substantial short- and long-term side effects. A number of studies have evaluated the effect of exercise interventions on those side effects. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2006. The original review identified some benefits of physical activity on physical fitness and the resulting capacity for performing activities of daily life. It also identified a lack of evidence for other outcomes, providing clear justification for an updated review.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of aerobic or resistance exercise interventions during adjuvant treatment for breast cancer on treatment-related side effects such as physical deterioration, fatigue, diminished quality of life, depression, and cognitive dysfunction.
SEARCH METHODS: We carried out an updated search in the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register (30 March 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2, 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 March 2015), and EMBASE (1966 to 30 March 2015). We did not update the original searches in CINAHL (1982 to 2004), SPORTDiscus (1975 to 2004), PsycINFO (1872 to 2003), SIGLE (1880 to 2004), and ProQuest Digital Dissertations (1861 to 2004). We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials on 30 March 2015. We screened references in relevant reviews and published clinical trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that examined aerobic or resistance exercise or both in women undergoing adjuvant treatment for breast cancer. Published and unpublished trials were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed data extraction, assessed trials, and graded the methodological quality using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion or by consulting the third review author. We entered data into Review Manager for analysis. For outcomes assessed with a variety of instruments, we used the standardised mean difference (SMD) as a summary statistic for meta-analysis; for those assessed with the same instrument, we used the mean difference (MD).
MAIN RESULTS: For this 2015 update we included a total of 32 studies with 2626 randomised women, 8 studies from the original search and 24 studies from the updated search. We found evidence that physical exercise during adjuvant treatment for breast cancer probably improves physical fitness (SMD 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.59; 15 studies; 1310 women; moderate-quality evidence) and slightly reduces fatigue (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.16; 19 studies; 1698 women; moderate-quality evidence). Exercise may lead to little or no improvement in health-related quality of life (MD 1.10, 95% CI -5.28 to 7.48; 1 study; 68 women; low-quality evidence), a slight improvement in cancer site-specific quality of life (MD 4.24, 95% CI -1.81 to 10.29; 4 studies; 262 women; low-quality evidence), and an improvement in cognitive function (MD -11.55, 95% CI -22.06 to -1.05; 2 studies; 213 women; low-quality evidence). Exercise probably leads to little or no difference in cancer-specific quality of life (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.25; 12 studies; 1012 women; moderate-quality evidence) and little or no difference in depression (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.01; 5 studies; 674 women; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence for other outcomes ranged from low to moderate quality. Seven trials reported a very small number of adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise during adjuvant treatment for breast cancer can be regarded as a supportive self care intervention that probably results in less fatigue, improved physical fitness, and little or no difference in cancer-specific quality of life and depression. Exercise may also slightly improve cancer site-specific quality of life and cognitive function, while it may result in little or no difference in health-related quality of life. This review is based on trials with a considerable degree of clinical heterogeneity regarding adjuvant cancer treatments and exercise interventions. Due to the difficulty of blinding exercise trials, all included trials were at high risk for performance bias. Furthermore, the majority of trials were at high risk for detection bias, largely due to most outcomes being self reported.The findings of the updated review have enabled us to make a more precise conclusion that both aerobic and resistance exercise can be regarded as beneficial for individuals with adjuvant therapy-related side effects. Further research is required to determine the optimal type, intensity, and timing of an exercise intervention. Furthermore, long-term evaluation is required due to possible long-term side effects of adjuvant treatment.
BACKGROUND: Current cancer care increasingly incorporates psychosocial interventions. Cancer patients use dance/movement therapy to learn to accept and reconnect with their bodies, build new self-confidence, enhance self-expression, address feelings of isolation, depression, anger and fear and to strengthen personal resources.
OBJECTIVES: To update the previously published review that examined the effects of dance/movement therapy and standard care versus standard care alone or standard care and other interventions on psychological and physical outcomes in patients with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (OvidSP, 1950 to June week 4, 2014), EMBASE (OvidSP, 1980 to 2014 week 26), CINAHL (EBSCOhost, 1982 to July 15 2014), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1806 to July 15 2014), LILACS (Virual Health Library, 1982 to July 15 2014), Science Citation Index (ISI, 1974 to July 15 2014), CancerLit (1983 to 2003), International Bibliography of Theatre and Dance (1989 to July 15 2014), the National Research Register (2000 to September 2007), Proquest Digital Dissertations, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Current Controlled Trials (all to July 15 2014). We handsearched dance/movement therapy and related topics journals, reviewed reference lists and contacted experts. There was no language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of dance/movement therapy interventions for improving psychological and physical outcomes in patients with cancer. We considered studies only if dance/movement therapy was provided by a formally trained dance/movement therapist or by trainees in a formal dance/movement therapy program.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality, seeking additional information from the trial researchers when necessary. Results were presented using standardized mean differences.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified one new trial for inclusion in this update. In total, the evidence for this review rests on three studies with a total of 207 participants.
We found no evidence for an effect of dance/movement therapy on depression (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to 0.32, P = 0.89, I2 = 0%) (two studies, N = 170), stress (SMD = -0.18, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.12, P = 0.24, I2 = 0%) (two studies, N = 170), anxiety (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.51 P = 0.18, I2 = 0%) (two studies, N = 170), fatigue (SMD = -0.36, 95% -1.26 to 0.55, P = 0.44, I² = 80%) (two studies, N = 170) and body image (SMD = -0.13, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.34, P = 0.58, I2 = 0%) (two studies, N = 68) in women with breast cancer. The data of one study with moderate risk of bias suggested that dance/movement therapy had a large beneficial effect on 37 participants' quality of life (QoL) (SMD = 0.89, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.57). One study with a high risk of bias reported greater improvements in vigor and greater reduction in somatization in the dance/movement therapy group compared to a standard care control group (N = 31). The individual studies did not find support for an effect of dance/movement therapy on mood, mental health, and pain. It is unclear whether this was due to ineffectiveness of the treatment, inappropriate outcome measures or limited power of the trials. Finally, the results of one study did not find evidence for an effect of dance/movement therapy on shoulder range of motion (ROM) or arm circumference in 37 women who underwent a lumpectomy or breast surgery. However, this was likely due to large within-group variability for shoulder ROM and a limited number of participants with lymphedema.
Two studies presented moderate risk of bias and one study high risk of bias. Therefore, overall, the quality of the evidence is very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find support for an effect of dance/movement therapy on depression, stress, anxiety, fatigue and body image . The findings of individual studies suggest that dance/movement therapy may have a beneficial effect on QoL, somatization, and vigor. However, the limited number of studies prevents us from drawing conclusions concerning the effects of dance/movement therapy on psychological and physical outcomes in cancer patients.
BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue is recognised as an important symptom associated with cancer and its treatment. A number of studies have investigated the effects of physical activity in reducing cancer-related fatigue. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library (2008, Issue 1). The original review identified some benefits of physical activity on fatigue in cancer both during and after adjuvant treatment. We identified a number of limitations in the evidence, providing clear justification for an updated review.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of exercise on cancer-related fatigue both during and after cancer treatment.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 1, 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), CINAHL (1982 to March 2011), British Nursing Index (January 1984 to March 2011), AMED (1985 to March 2011), SIGLE (1980 to March 2011) and Dissertation Abstracts International (1861 to March 2011) using key words. We also searched reference lists off all studies identified for inclusion and relevant reviews. In addition, we handsearched relevant journals and contacted experts in the field of cancer-related fatigue.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought and included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effect of exercise on cancer-related fatigue in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of studies and extracted data based upon predefined criteria. Where data were available we performed meta-analyses for fatigue using a random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS: For this update we identified a total of 56 studies (4068 participants) for inclusion (28 from the original search and 28 from the updated search), with the majority carried out in participants with breast cancer (28 studies). A meta-analysis of all fatigue data, incorporating 38 comparisons, provided data for 1461 participants who received an exercise intervention and 1187 control participants. At the end of the intervention period exercise was seen to be statistically more effective than the control intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to -0.17). Benefits of exercise on fatigue were observed for interventions delivered during or post-adjuvant cancer therapy. In relation to diagnosis, we identified benefits of exercise on fatigue for breast and prostate cancer but not for those with haematological malignancies. Finally, aerobic exercise significantly reduced fatigue but resistance training and alternative forms of exercise failed to reach significance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the updated review have enabled a more precise conclusion to be made in that aerobic exercise can be regarded as beneficial for individuals with cancer-related fatigue during and post-cancer therapy, specifically those with solid tumours. Further research is required to determine the optimal type, intensity and timing of an exercise intervention.
<b>INTRODUCTION: </b>Urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, fatigue as well as fears and depression rank among the most common complaints in patients with prostate cancer, resulting in a reduced participation in daily life and social isolation. Consequently, the quality of life of prostate cancer patients is strongly affected in a negative way. Numerous studies focusing on physical exercise interventions in prostate cancers patients demonstrate positive physiological and psychological effects. Our objective was to evaluate the evidence of randomized controlled studies which examined exercise during medical treatment and in the aftercare of a prostate cancer disease.<b>METHODS: </b>Twenty-five randomized controlled trials regarding physical activities in patients with prostate cancer were obtained by systematic literature research (Medpilot). Twenty-one studies examined clinical exercise interventions during the phase of medical treatment (irradiation, pre- and/or post-op, androgen deprivation therapy) and four studies during the aftercare. In order to evaluate the evidence of the included studies, the evaluation system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine was used. Within this systematic review, we differentiated between "supervised clinical exercise" and "non-supervised clinical exercise."<b>Results and DISCUSSION: </b>Current data suggest that incontinence, fitness, fatigue, body constitution, and also quality of life can be improved by clinical exercise in patients during and after prostate cancer. Studies were mostly ranked evidence level "2b." Only four studies, all conducted during medical treatment, reached the level "1b." It seems to be that "supervised exercise" is more effective than "non-supervised exercise." For future research, further randomized controlled trials with high methodological quality need to be conducted in order to establish evidence-based recommendations particularly for prostate cancer patients.
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a distressing symptom that affects the quality of life (QOL) of patients with breast cancer and their families. The effectiveness of pharmacologic therapies alone has not been sufficient in the management of CRF; therefore, a combination of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches is justified. The purpose of this article is to critically review the literature related to nonpharmacologic supportive strategies in enhancing QOL among patients with breast cancer experiencing CRF. The results show that exercises (e.g., home-based exercise, supervised exercise), education and counseling, sleep therapy, and complementary therapy are feasible as effective nonpharmacologic supportive interventions to improve QOL in patients with breast cancer suffering from CRF. Therefore, nurses may consider these nonpharmacologic supportive strategies as adjunctive interventions to pharmacologic interventions in enhancing QOL for patients with breast cancer experiencing CRF. However, because previous studies had some methodologic limitations, such as small sample size, lack of objective measures, or predominantly Caucasian sample, future research to further explore nonpharmacologic interventions in this area is warranted.
Journal»Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore the efficacy of exercise as a nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce cancer-related fatigue (CRF) among adult cancer survivors. We also investigated how different components of the exercise prescription (Ex R(x)), methodologic considerations, and subject characteristics modulate CRF.
METHODS: A systematic search for randomized controlled trials was conducted using words related to cancer, exercise, and fatigue.
RESULTS: In total, 44 studies with 48 interventions qualified, including 3,254 participants of varying cancer types, stages of diagnosis, treatments, and exercise interventions. Cancer survivors in exercise interventions reduced their CRF levels to a greater extent than usual care controls, d(+) = 0.31 (95% CI = 0.22-0.40), an effect that appeared to generalize across several types of cancer. CRF levels improved in direct proportion to the intensity of resistance exercise (β = 0.60, P = 0.01), a pattern that was stronger in higher quality studies (β = 0.23, P < 0.05). CRF levels also reduced to a greater extent when interventions were theoretically driven (β = 0.48, P < 0.001) or cancer survivors were older (β = 0.24, P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise reduced CRF especially in programs that involved moderate-intensity, resistance exercise among older cancer survivors and that were guided by theory.
IMPACT: Our results indicate exercise interventions for adult cancer survivors should be multi-dimensional and individualized according to health outcome and cancer type.
The use of exercise interventions to manage cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a rapidly developing field of study. However, results are inconsistent and difficult to interpret across the literature, making it difficult to draw accurate conclusions regarding the true effectiveness of exercise interventions for CRF management. The aims of this study were to apply a meta-analysis to quantitatively assess the effects of exercise intervention strategies on CRF, and to elucidate appropriate exercise prescription guidelines. A systematic search of electronic databases and relevant journals and articles was conducted. Studies were eligible if subjects were over the age of 18 years, if they had been given a diagnosis of or had been treated for cancer, if exercise was used to treat CRF as a primary or secondary endpoint, and if the effects of the intervention were evaluated quantitatively and presented adequate statistical data for analysis. A total of 16 studies, representing 1426 participants (exercise, 759; control, 667) were included in a meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model. The standardized mean difference effect size (SMD) was used to test the effect of exercise on CRF between experimental and control groups. The results indicate a small but significant effect size in favour of the use of exercise interventions for reducing CRF (SMD 0.26, p < 0.001). Furthermore, aerobic exercise programs caused a significant reduction in CRF (SMD 0.21, p < 0.001) and overall, exercise was able to significantly improve aerobic and musculoskeletal fitness compared with control groups (p < 0.01). Further investigation is still required to determine the effects of exercise on potential underlying mechanisms related to the pathophysiology of CRF.
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.
