↓ Skip to main content

Music as an aid for postoperative recovery in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
48 news outlets
blogs
20 blogs
twitter
572 tweeters
facebook
42 Facebook pages
googleplus
8 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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

Hole, Jenny, Hirsch, Martin, Ball, Elizabeth, Meads, Catherine, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 572 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Japan 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Montenegro 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 115 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 23 18%
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Student > Master 18 14%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Other 36 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Psychology 13 10%
Arts and Humanities 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 13 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 954. 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 30 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,796
of 7,937,232 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#58
of 23,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57
of 227,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#3
of 498 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,937,232 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 23,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 227,758 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 498 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 99% of its contemporaries.