| Title |
Music as an aid for postoperative recovery in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Lancet, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60169-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jenny Hole, Martin Hirsch, Elizabeth Ball, Catherine Meads |
| Abstract |
Music is a non-invasive, safe, and inexpensive intervention that can be delivered easily and successfully. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether music improves recovery after surgical procedures. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients undergoing surgical procedures, excluding those involving the central nervous system or head and neck, published in any language. We included RCTs in which any form of music initiated before, during, or after surgery was compared with standard care or other non-drug interventions. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central. We did meta-analysis with RevMan (version 5.2), with standardised mean differences (SMD) and random-effects models, and used Stata (version 12) for meta-regression. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42013005220. We identified 4261 titles and abstracts, and included 73 RCTs in the systematic review, with size varying between 20 and 458 participants. Choice of music, timing, and duration varied. Comparators included routine care, headphones with no music, white noise, and undisturbed bed rest. Music reduced postoperative pain (SMD -0·77 [95% CI -0·99 to -0·56]), anxiety (-0·68 [-0·95 to -0·41]), and analgesia use (-0·37 [-0·54 to -0·20]), and increased patient satisfaction (1·09 [0·51 to 1·68]), but length of stay did not differ (SMD -0·11 [-0·35 to 0·12]). Subgroup analyses showed that choice of music and timing of delivery made little difference to outcomes. Meta-regression identified no causes of heterogeneity in eight variables assessed. Music was effective even when patients were under general anaesthetic. Music could be offered as a way to help patients reduce pain and anxiety during the postoperative period. Timing and delivery can be adapted to individual clinical settings and medical teams. None. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 541 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 105 | 19% |
| United States | 61 | 11% |
| Spain | 36 | 7% |
| Canada | 18 | 3% |
| France | 15 | 3% |
| Mexico | 15 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 12 | 2% |
| Australia | 11 | 2% |
| Germany | 7 | 1% |
| Other | 73 | 13% |
| Unknown | 188 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 365 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 91 | 17% |
| Scientists | 73 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 12 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 549 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Japan | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 540 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 67 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 65 | 12% |
| Researcher | 63 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 54 | 10% |
| Other | 47 | 9% |
| Other | 122 | 22% |
| Unknown | 131 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 164 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 89 | 16% |
| Psychology | 43 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 20 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 17 | 3% |
| Other | 69 | 13% |
| Unknown | 147 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1071. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 July 2023.
All research outputs
#14,721
of 25,755,403 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#430
of 42,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103
of 277,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#5
of 434 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,755,403 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,987 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 434 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.