Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the efficacy of music for medical indications in term or preterm neonates.
Methods: We searched 17 electronic databases, subject bibliographies, reference lists and trials registries. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity in outcomes so a qualitative analysis is presented.
Results: Nine randomised trials were included. The methodological quality was generally poor (median Jadad score = 1). The outcomes most commonly reported were physiological measures (heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, oxygen saturation (Sao2)), behavioural state and pain. Six studies evaluated music for the painful procedures circumcision (three trials) and heel prick (three trials). For circumcisions, one high quality pilot study (n = 23) showed benefits of music for the outcomes of HR, Sao2 and pain, while two low quality studies showed no difference. For heel prick, three low quality studies provided some evidence that music may be beneficial primarily for measures of behaviour and pain. The remaining studies evaluated the use of music in preterm infants to improve physiological and behavioural parameters (n = 31; benefits observed for behavioural parameters), to reinforce non-nutritive sucking via use of a pacifier activated lullaby (n = 32; significant increase in feeding rates), and to influence physiological stability and behaviours in infants with chronic lung disease (n = 22; no significant differences for outcomes assessed).
Conclusions: The heterogeneity in study populations, interventions and outcomes precludes definitive conclusions around efficacy. There is preliminary evidence for some therapeutic benefits of music for specific indications; however, these findings need to be confirmed in methodologically rigorous trials.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None.
Author contributions: LH provided methodological advice, assessed study quality, extracted and analysed data, and drafted the manuscript. MS reviewed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed study quality. LT conducted the literature searches and assisted with manuscript preparation. RL reviewed studies for inclusion, and assisted with data extraction and manuscript preparation. YL provided statistical advice. MK provided technical advice at all stages of the review, assisted with assessment of study quality and data extraction, and helped with drafting of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.