Music Intervention for Pain Control in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
by
, , , , and
Berne Ting
1,2
,
Chia-Lin Tsai
2,3, 
Wei-Ti Hsu
3,4,
Mei-Ling Shen
5,
Ping-Tao Tseng
6,7,8,
Daniel Tzu-Li Chen
2,9,10
,
Kuan-Pin Su
2,3,9,11,* and
Li Jingling
3,*
1
Ph.D. Program for Aging, College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung 404, Taiwan
2
Mind-Body Interface Laboratory (MBI-Lab), China Medical University Hospital, Taichung 404, Taiwan
3
Graduate Institute of Biomedical Sciences, College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung 404, Taiwan
4
Department of Anesthesiology, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung 404, Taiwan
5
Taichung Tzu-Chi Hospital, Taichung 427, Taiwan
6
Department of Psychology, College of Medical and Health Science, Asia University, Taichung 413, Taiwan
7
Prospect Clinic for Otorhinolaryngology & Neurology, Kaohsiung 811, Taiwan
8
Institute of Biomedical Sciences, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan
9
M.D.-Ph.D. Program, College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung 404, Taiwan
10
School of Chinese Medicine, College of Chinese Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung 404, Taiwan
11
An-Nan Hospital, China Medical University, Tainan 709, Taiwan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(4), 991; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11040991
Submission received: 2 January 2022
/
Revised: 8 February 2022
/
Accepted: 10 February 2022
/
Published: 14 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Mental Health)
Abstract
:Music intervention (MI) has been applied as an effective adjunctive treatment for pain control in various clinical settings. However, no meta-analysis has yet been published on the analgesic effects of MI in infants and children. We performed a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with the keywords “pain” AND “music therapy” from inception to January 2022. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and vital signs. Standardized mean difference (SMD) values and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using a random effect model. Subgroup analyses with age groups, types of pain, and music styles were conducted. A total of 38 RCTs involving 5601 participants met the selection criteria. MI significantly decreased the pain levels (SMD = −0.57, p < 0.001), both in the newborn group (p = 0.007) and in the infant/children group (p < 0.001). MI significantly reduced heart rate (SMD = −0.50, p < 0.001) and respiratory rate (SMD = −0.60, p = 0.002) and increased peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SMD = 0.44, p < 0.001). In subgroup analyses of types of pain, MI had significant effects on prick pain (p = 0.003), chronic and procedural pain (p < 0.001), and postoperative pain (p = 0.018). As for music styles, significant analgesic effects were observed for classical music (p < 0.001), kids’ music (p < 0.001), and pop music (p = 0.001), but not for world music (p = 0.196), special composition (p = 0.092), and multiple music combinations (p = 0.420). In conclusion, our analysis provides supportive evidence about the efficacy of MI, especially classical, kids’, and pop music, in controlling prick, procedural, and postoperative pain in the pediatric population.
1. Introduction
Pain has significant impacts on both physical and psychological well-being of newborns, infants, and children [1]. Pain may lead to fear, anxiety, depression, and behavioral and cognitive changes [2]. Moreover, several physiological responses, such as plasma cortisol levels, oxygen saturation, heart rate, and respiratory rate, may also be triggered by the unpleasant experience or emotional state of pain [3]. Pharmacotherapy is currently the main treatment for pain relief, with, e.g., non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, it has several adverse effects especially for young populations [4]. Therefore, several non-pharmacological interventions have been applied as adjunctive treatments for pain control in the pediatric population [5], including distraction via taste (e.g., glucose), tactile (e.g., hugs, massage, and acupuncture), auditory (e.g., mother’s voice, imitating the sound of the uterus, and heartbeats), or visual (e.g., cartoons and pictures) stimuli, nutritional supplementation [6], and music interventions.
Music intervention (MI), including music therapy and music treatment [7,8], refers to a non-invasive systematic interventional process in which music is delivered by therapist or medical personnel to improve patients’ health outcomes [9,10,11]. MI facilitates a sense of control in patients [12] and provides mental distraction [8,13], emotional smoothness, and relaxation, which have been found to have pain relief effects.
The effects of MI in reducing pain have been extensively studied in adults, including in 13 recent meta-analyses published from 2000 to 2021 [7,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. However, a comprehensive meta-analysis of MI effects in infants or children is still lacking. Therefore, this current meta-analysis mainly focused on clinical trials of MI in newborn infants and children.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Search Strategy and Selection Criteria
Four databases, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library, were used to identify studies about the effectiveness of MI in children, from inception date to January 2022. The combination of “pain” and “music therapy” was used to search potential papers in these databases. Two authors, independently, (Hsu and Shen) searched and screened the relevant literature. Firstly, EndNote X8 software was utilized to delete duplicates and non-pediatric literature. After that, the titles and abstracts of all identified articles were assessed for eligibility considering the following inclusion criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials; (2) intervention group receiving MI that included all three factors of music (i.e., rhythm, melody, and harmony); (3) outcome assessments included pain measures; (4) age of all participants was less than 18 years. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) reviews, protocols, conference papers, case reports, letters, or editorials; (2) MI was administered with other types of therapy or was a part of complementary and alternative therapy; (3) the control group received any components of music, i.e., rhythm, melody, and harmony; (4) studies that did not provide information for meta-analysis. Finally, the full texts of the identified articles were assessed for meta-analysis by three independent authors (Shen, Tsai, and Ting). If there were any disagreements about the inclusion of the studies, online meetings were convened with the advisors (Jingling and Su) for resolving the conflicts.
2.2. Data Extraction
We developed a form to extract the suitable data including the following details: (1) characteristics of the papers (authors, publication year, and country); (2) characteristics of the participants (condition, kinds of pain); (3) study design and methodological quality (random allocation, blinding, selection process of participants, loss to follow-up); (4) MIs (MI method, music style, and use of equipment); (5) outcome measures and statistical data (kind of pain scales and results of pain scores, vital signs, sample size, mean age, and sex ratio). Three authors, independently, (Hsu, Shen, and Ting) extracted the data, and disagreements were resolved by discussing with the other two authors (Jingling and Su).
2.3. Assessment of Risk of Bias in the Included Studies
The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed based on the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool [26] by three authors, independently (Chen, Shen, and Tsai). The eight special items for assessing quality and bias judgment were: (1) Random sequence generation, (2) Allocation concealment, (3) Blinding of the participants, (4) Blinding of the personnel who administered the intervention, (5) Blinding of outcome assessment, (6) Incomplete outcome data, (7) Selective reporting, and (8) Other bias. Each item was rated as “low risk,” “unclear risk,” or “high risk” for bias according to the content of the article. In this study, blindness was assessed separately for participants and personnel because the intervention administrators and the researchers might not be the same. We set that “Selective reporting” would evaluate whether the clinical trial was registered. Further, “Other bias” would check the details of the conflict of interests or funding sources. Any disagreements of the results were resolved by discussing with the other two authors (Jingling and Su).
2.4. Statistical Analysis
All outcome data included in this meta-analysis were continuous data and were analyzed using the standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome was the pain scores after the intervention for the MI and the control groups. If the outcomes were measured for several points in time, the shortest time point (e.g., five minutes) after the intervention was chosen. If there were multiple assessments, the self-report of the child was chosen for the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were the vital signs. If standard deviation (SD) or 95% CI were not reported in the original articles, data were estimated from medians, interquartile range (IQR), range, standard errors, t values, or p values. The random effect model was used to estimate the pooled effect size [27]. The interpretation of the effect size based on Cohen’s guidelines is as follows: effect size = 0.2 is considered a ‘small’ effect size, 0.5 represents a ‘medium’ effect size, and 0.8 a ‘large’ effect size [28]. All p-values were two-sided, and 0.050 was considered statistically significant. Each analysis was evaluated by statistical heterogeneity using I-square (I2) statistics. A p-value less than 0.10 for the I2 test indicated significant heterogeneity [27]. The potential publication bias was investigated by a funnel plot and Egger’s regression asymmetry analysis [29].
2.5. Subgroup Analysis
We found that many of the included studies were targeted at premature babies. Therefore, we further categorized them into three different age subgroups according to the majority of the participants in that study: newborn (less than 3 months or 48 weeks of gestational age), infant and children (3 months to 12 years of age), and adolescent (12 to 18 years of age). On the other hand, the type of music was categorized into six subgroups by a professional musician (Ting) according to the following criteria: (1) Classical music: music written in a Western musical tradition, usually using an established form (for example, a symphony) is generally considered to be serious and to have a lasting value [30]. (2) Children’s music or kids’ music: music composed and performed for children. (3) World music: folk music from around the world. (4) Pop music: a genre of popular music that originated in its modern form during the mid-1950s in the United States and the United Kingdom. The terms popular music and pop music are often used interchangeably, although the former describes all music that is popular and includes many disparate styles. (5) Special composition: music composition for specific objectives; here, it refers to those studies where the researchers designed a special piece of music for pain relief. (6) Multiple Combinations: a simultaneous combination of two or more types of music.
We performed subgroup analyses to investigate the potential heterogeneity of the included studies. The subgroup variables included age groups (newborns, infants, children, and adolescent), pain types (chronic pain, procedural pain, postoperative pain, and prick pain), music styles (classical music, kids’ music, world music, pop music, special composition, multiple combinations), type of equipment (headphone, earphone, speaker, and live performance), and rating sources (other rating by a parent or investigator and self-rating by the children). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the findings by excluding the studies with high risk for randomization and allocation concealment. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3, (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA) was used to process the statistical data from all included studies.
3. Results
3.1. Identification of Eligible Studies
Figure 1 shows the result of our screening process. We identified 5363 articles with our searching strategy. Duplicate articles (n = 2153) were excluded. The abstracts of articles that did not match the selection criteria (n = 3135) were also excluded. Finally, 38 articles out of 72 available full-text articles were included in this meta-analysis. The details of the excluded 34 articles are presented in Supplementary File S1.
3.2. Study Characteristics and Patient Populations
A total of 5601 participants in 38 articles, published between 2006 and 2022, were included (Table 1). Among all articles, eight articles were conducted in America [31,32,33,34,35,36,37], 14 in Europe [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51], 13 in Asia [52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65], and three in Africa [11,66,67]. Most studies (n = 33) had a parallel randomized controlled design, and five studies [39,45,48,53,62] had a cross-over randomized controlled design. The sample size in each article ranged from 20 to 3095 participants. The mean age of the participants ranged from a few days of birth to teenage years. To be specific, two articles included adolescents [43,52], 12 newborns [31,39,41,48,49,53,56,60,61,62,64,65], and 24 infants and children [11,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,42,44,45,46,47,50,51,54,55,57,58,59,63,66,67]. On the other hand, 29 studies were conducted in the hospital setting [11,32,33,34,36,38,39,40,41,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,53,54,55,56,58,59,60,61,62,64,65,66,67], and 9 in the clinic setting [31,35,37,42,43,51,52,57,63]. As for the type of pain, 18 articles examined participants with prick pain (heel lance, intravenous (IV) insertion, immunization, acupuncture, and lumbar puncture) [33,35,37,39,41,43,48,51,53,54,56,58,59,60,62,63,64,65], 8 participants with procedural pain (emergency procedural, retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), wound care, peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), orthodontic procedure, and continuous positive airway pressure (C-PAP)) [11,31,32,49,50,52,61,67], 4 participants with chronic pain (rehabilitation, illness pressure) [42,45,57,66], and 8 participants with postoperative pain [34,36,38,40,44,46,47,55]. Among all 38 studies, the participants listened to classical music in 11 articles [32,34,39,40,41,42,44,46,62,64,66], to kids’ music in 8 articles [31,36,37,38,45,49,61,65], to world music in 3 articles [54,56,60], to pop music in 3 articles [51,57,63], to special composition in 5 articles [11,35,47,48,59], and to multiple combinations of music in 4 articles [33,43,50,67]. Additionally, in one article [53], two groups of participants listened to either kids’ music or world music, and thus this article was separated into two datasets. As for the listening instruments, 9 articles used headphones [32,34,35,36,38,44,53,63,65], 4 used earphones [46,54,55,59], 19 used speakers [11,31,33,39,40,41,42,47,48,49,51,56,58,60,61,62,64,66], and 4 used live performance [37,45,50,67]. In one article [43], participants listened to music using either headphones or speakers, and thus this study was separated into two datasets. A total of 14 different pain rating scales were used in the meta-analysis, consisting of Likert pain scales (Wong–Baker Scale (WBS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Faces Pain Scale (FPS), and Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R)) and structured pain scales (Neonatal Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Scale (N-PASS), Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP), COMFORT behavior scale (COMFORT-B), Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS), Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS), Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), Child–Adult Medical Procedure Interaction Scale Revised (CAMPIS-R), Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale (FLACC), and Oucher Pain Scale (OPS)). Two articles included multiple intervention groups, and thus more comparisons could be carried out. Finally, 40 datasets (MI vs. control) were extracted for meta-analysis from the 38 articles.
3.3. Quality of the Included Articles
As for the quality of the 38 articles, only 3 articles had a high risk of selection bias [34,37,65], and one article had a high risk of attrition bias [62]. Due to the nature of MI, most of the included articles had high a risk of performance bias, but five articles had a low risk, by blinding both the participants and the researchers [32,38,44,46,65]. As for detection bias, 15 articles [31,37,38,44,45,46,48,49,53,56,57,58,60,65,67] had a low risk by blinding the researchers. The graph and summary table of risk of bias are presented in Supplementary File S2.
3.4. Primary Outcome of MI
Figure 2 shows the primary results of our extracted datasets (n = 40), involving 5601 participants. We found that MI significantly decreased the pain score (SMD = −0.57, 95% CI = −0.87 to −0.27, p < 0.001), but with significantly heterogeneity (I2 = 95%, p for I2 < 0.001). Therefore, subgroup analysis on age was carried out and is described in Figure 3. The effect size (−0.57) indicated that MIs had a medium effect on pain control. Analysis based on groups of age revealed that music decreased pain significantly in both newborns (k = 13, n = 3774, SMD = −0.75, 95% CI = −1.29 to −0.21, p = 0.007) and infants and children (k = 24, n = 1659, SMD = −0.44, 95% CI = −0.61 to −0.26, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, music showed no evidence of a pain-relieving effect in adolescents (p = 0.264). This is likely due to the small number of studies in adolescents.
3.5. Secondary Outcome of MI
Figure 3 describes the effect size findings for vital signs, including blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), respiration rate (RR), and peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2). BP was recorded in five datasets with 279 participants and was not significantly affected (p = 0.063) by MI for pain relief. The analysis of 15 datasets involving 743 participants indicated that MI lowered HR by 0.50 units (95% CI −0.73 to −0.27, p < 0.001), with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 62%, p for I2 < 0.001). Seven datasets with 315 participants revealed that MI showed a medium effect on RR, but with significant heterogeneity (SMD = −0.60, 95% CI = −0.99 to −0.22, p = 0.002, I2 = 65%, p for I2 = 0.010). SpO2 was measured in 11 datasets, involving 469 participants, and a small to medium but significant effect (SMD = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.26 to 0.61, p < 0.001, I2 = 23%) was observed. The positive SMD indicated that SpO2 was higher in the music group than in the control group. The results of vital signs revealed that MIs showed statistically significant effects in decreasing HR and RR and increasing SpO2 in children in painful conditions, while not influencing BP.
3.6. Subgroup Analyses
Table 2 shows the effect of MI on pain by collapsing data from all age groups in subgroup analyses. In general, MI had a significantly superior effect in decreasing chronic and procedural pain (SMD = −0.64, p < 0.001), postoperative pain (SMD = −0.49, p = 0.018), and prick pain (SMD = −0.66, p = 0.003). As for the music styles, the results revealed that MI produced a significantly superior effect on pain release when classical music, kids’ music, and pop music were provided. To be specific, classical music showed the largest effect size (SMD = −0.71, p < 0.001) in reducing pain in children. On the contrary, the results showed the limited effects of world music, special composition, and multiple combinations of music. In the subgroup analysis by type of equipment, MI exhibited a significantly superior effect when music was delivered by headphones and earphones (SMD = −0.49, p < 0.001) and speaker (SMD = −0.63, p = 0.005) compared to the control groups. There was a limited effect of music delivered during live performance.
We included studies that measured pain intensity by using both other rating methods (PIPP, NIPS, NFCS, Comfort-B, CAMPIS-R, CHEOPS, N-PASS, and FLACC) and self-rating methods (VAS, WBS, FPS, FPS-R, NRS, and OPS). A similar effect of music in reducing pain scores was found when using both other rating methods (19 data, SMD = −1.04, p = 0.017) and self-rating methods (21 data, SMD = −0.76, p < 0.001). These results revealed that MIs are reliably effective in reducing pain in children, regardless of assessing methods.
3.7. Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis was conducted on selection bias by including only high-quality studies on randomization and allocation concealment [11,32,33,36,42,44,46,56,60,62,63,64,67] and revealed a significantly median to large effect size (k = 13, n = 4022, SMD = −0.62, 95% CI = −1.20 to −0.04, p = 0.037, I2 = 97%). The result of sensitivity analysis showed a similar effect size as that of the main analysis (SMD = −0.57, p < 0.001), indicating that the main result was robust.
3.8. Evaluation of Publication Bias
Publication bias easily occurs in studies with small sample sizes, referring to the phenomenon that studies with significant results are more likely to be published than those reporting nonsignificant conclusions [68]. The funnel plot of standard errors by SMD was assessed according to its symmetry, and the results are presented in Figure 4. The results showed asymmetry, with a blank area in the lower right region of the funnel plot indicating the absence of articles with small sample size and non-significant results for publication [69]. Meanwhile, a significant publication bias was founded by Egger’s regression test (t = 7.53, df = 38, 2-tailed p < 0.001).
4. Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis focused on pain control by MI in newborn babies. Although several past studies focused on this topic, they were not meta-analyses. For instance, O’Toole et al. and González-Martín-Moreno et al. reviewed the effects of MIs on pain in infants and children [70,71]. Another previous study investigated the effect of MI on pain in children; however, they did not find consistent outcome measures for a meta-analysis [72]. Meanwhile, a meta-analysis probed the effect of music in children but focused on anxiety and quality of life in children rather than on pain [73]. Therefore, our study provides a comprehensive summary of current RCTs on pain control by MI in pediatric populations.
Our main finding is that MI can decrease pain levels and stabilize HR, SPO2, and RR in the pediatric population. MI provides a significant analgesic effect in infants and children, especially in newborn babies. As for the different types of pain, we found that MI showed positive results for prick pain, procedure pain, and postoperative pain. Our findings are consistent with some previous meta-analyses that reported significant effects in pain control, such as pain in surgery [74,75] and postoperative pain [20,76,77]. Among all the music styles we investigated, classical music, kids’ music, and pop music had the greatest impact on alleviating pain in children. The effect of MI can be delivered by headphones, earphones, or speakers. The effect of pain control may be linked to individual music preferences. Besides, specific features such as rhythm and harmony and the use of specific instruments also seem important for anxiety and pain reduction [47]. However, we cannot expect the development of music preference in infants and children is completely established. In general, MI can robustly provide pain relief across various conditions.
Music provides a relaxing atmosphere for newborns via the auditory system, which is fully developed before birth. To be specific, the auditory perception of a fetus is developed at about the 25th week of gestation [78], and objective indicators of normal cognitive ability, including auditory perception, can be measured in the first few days after birth [79]. Therefore, music can be appreciated even by newborn babies, which indicates auditory access may be a key to pain relief [80]. On top of that, MI delivers rhythm, melody, and harmony that may smooth emotion and lead to relaxation [12]. Compared to other non-invasive and non-pharmacological pain relief interventions, such as sucrose and massage, MI is recommended for its convenience and effectiveness. For instance, specialists are needed to massage, and other artificial products are taken when using sucrose as an analgesic intervention. By contrast, no specific material or faculty is needed for MI. It could be argued that a placebo effect is beneficial anyway [81], in this instance reducing pain. However, the subgroup analysis did show a statistically significant pain-reducing effect. The placebo effect could be limited, as the studies relied on both self-reporting and observational rating by others in pediatric populations, indicating objective results in our study. The effects on pain control may be associated with distraction provided by music [8,13]. In fact, a meta-analysis by Richard-Lalonde et al. investigating the pain control effect of music in an adult mixed population admitted to the ICU also showed a significant positive result [82]. More importantly, international guidelines for ICU care recommend offering music to reduce pain and strongly recommend further research on non-pharmacological interventions [83]. However, it currently still lacks related guidelines for infants and children. After all, MI is still recommended to improve short-term outcomes in NICU for premature infants, for its effectiveness and safety.
We further revealed that the analgesic effect of MI can be achieved by various music styles (Table 2). Interestingly, monotype of classical music, kids’ music, and pop music showed better effects in reducing pain, while the combination of multiple music types was not effective. Those studies with multi-style combinations of music [33,43,50,72] showed inconsistent results, probably due to the mixture of emotional reactions induced by different music styles [48]. For instance, music with low bass and low beats can stimulate the limbic system of the brain and thus may affect emotional regulation [11,48,84]. Further, relaxing music can reduce both HR and BP, while music with a fast beat may have the opposite effect [73]. Therefore, a mixture of music types may have opposite effects on emotional regulation, leading to insignificant results. Another interesting finding is that several ways to deliver music, i.e., the use of headphones, earphones, and speaker, can significantly reduce pain, except for live performance. We considered that this may be caused by components of live performance other than music that dilute the effect of music [50]. In summary, a consistent music style and pure auditory inputs may be crucial for the success of MI in pain relief. We then also suggest that optimal sound in MI for the pediatric population, such as specific basses, rhythms, and tones, might be worthy of testing in the future.
Our study has a number of limitations and offers suggestions for issues that could be addressed in future research. Firstly, finding results with the employed search strategy might be insufficient. For instance, only two articles with three datasets were included for adolescent participants. Future studies may focus on critical factors that may contribute to the analgesic effect of MI specifically in this age group. Secondly, many studies were not double-blinded, which is one of the fundamental challenges of MI. Whether participants or experimenters are aware of the effect of music during the intervention can be considered in future studies to reduce the placebo effect. Thirdly, a high heterogeneity was shown even in the subgroup analysis (Figure 3 and Table 2). Therefore, it is possible that some unnoticed factors may have not been categorized in our current analysis, and these factors may play an essential role in the effect of MI on pain. For instance, adolescents might have developed their preference of music style, and providing music that was unappealing to them may have reduced the effectiveness of the intervention [33]. Alternatively, the high heterogeneity might reveal the heterogeneity of studies we included in the meta-analysis. However, we considered that 40 comparisons in our meta-analysis would provide a reliable estimation of the analgesic effect of MI. Lastly, the subject number (total n = 3095) of an included study [56] was much larger than those of other included studies, which may have influenced the outcomes of our analyses. To this end, software CAM automatically provided a relative weight for correction. Therefore, the results should also be reliable.
5. Conclusions
Our meta-analysis of 38 RCT articles with a total of 5601 participants provides evidence supporting the thesis that MI releases pain in both psychological and physiological domains. A consistent music style and a pure auditory experience might be important in MI for pain. MI is an appropriate, low-stress, and safe non-pharmacological treatment for clinical pain relief in the pediatric population.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm11040991/s1, Supplementary File S1: Reasons for exclusion of 34 articles; Supplementary File S2: Quality of the included studies: (a) Risk of bias graph; (b) Risk of bias summary.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, B.T., C.-L.T. and W.-T.H.; methodology and analyses, B.T., C.-L.T., W.-T.H., M.-L.S., P.-T.T. and L.J.; writing—original draft preparation, B.T., C.-L.T., W.-T.H. and M.-L.S.; writing—review and editing, C.-L.T., M.-L.S., D.T.-L.C., K.-P.S. and L.J.; supervision, K.-P.S. and L.J.; project administration, K.-P.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The authors of this work were supported by the following grants: MOST108-2410-H-039-003, 109-2320-B-038-057-MY3, 109-2320-B-039-066, 110-2321-B-006-004, 110-2811-B-039-507, 110-2320-B-039-048-MY2, and 110-2320-B-039-047-MY3 from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan; ANHRF109-31, 110-13, and 110-26 from An Nan Hospital, China Medical University, Tainan, Taiwan; CMRC-CMA-2 from Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education (MOE), Taiwan; CMU108-SR-106 from the China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan; and CMU104-S-16-01, CMU103-BC-4-1, CRS-108-048, DMR-102-076, DMR-103-084, DMR-106-225, DMR-107-204, DMR-108-216, DMR-109-102, DMR-109-244, DMR-HHC-109-11, DMR-HHC-109-12, DMR-HHC-110-10, DMR-110-124, and CMU110-AWARD-02 from the China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to data were from published papers.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available in Google drive (MAShare_2022), at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wSH6vOveKvkCHytCaOIiTrlz1KAziLFh?usp=sharing (accessed on 2 January 2022).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Inal, S.; Şahiner, N.C. Using of distraction methods on procedural pain management of pediatric patients. Sağlık Bilimleri Ve Mesl. Derg. 2015, 2, 372–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lago, P.; Garetti, E.; Merazzi, D.; Pieragostini, L.; Ancora, G.; Pirelli, A.; Bellieni, C.V. Guidelines for procedural pain in the newborn. Acta Paediatr. 2009, 98, 932–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bonutti, P.D.; Daré, M.F.; Castral, T.C.; Leite, A.M.; Vici-Maia, J.A.; Scochi, C.G.S. Dimensioning of painful procedures and interventions for acute pain relief in premature infants. Rev. Lat. Am. De Enferm. 2017, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Friedrichsdorf, J.S.; Sidman, J.; Krane, E.J. Prevention and treatment of pain in children: Toward a paradigm shift. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2016, 154, 804–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rosen, A.D.; Dower, J. Pediatric pain management. Pediatr. Ann. 2011, 40, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, P.K.; Matsuoka, Y.; Pae, C.U. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in prevention of mood and anxiety disorders. Clin. Psychopharmacol. Neurosci. 2015, 13, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, J.H. The effects of music on pain: A meta-analysis. J. Music Ther. 2016, 53, 430–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henry, L.L. Music therapy: A nursing intervention for the control of pain and anxiety in the icu: A review of the research literature. Dimens. Crit. Care Nurs 1995, 14, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colwell, M.C.; Edwards, R.; Hernandez, E.; Brees, K. Impact of music therapy interventions (listening, composition, orff-based) on the physiological and psychosocial behaviors of hospitalized children: A feasibility study. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 2013, 28, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleiber, C.; Adamek, M.S. Adolescents’ perceptions of music therapy following spinal fusion surgery. J. Clin. Nurs. 2013, 22, 414–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Heijden, M.J.E.; Mevius, H.; van der Heijde, N.; van Rosmalen, J.; van As, S.; van Dijk, M. Children listening to music or watching cartoons during er procedures: A RCT. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 2019, 44, 1151–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Avers, L.; Mathur, A.; Kamat, D. Music therapy in pediatrics. Clin. Pediatr. 2007, 46, 575–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bruscia, K. Defining Music Therapy, 3rd ed.; Barcelona Publishers: Gilsum, NH, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Cepeda, M.S.; Carr, D.B.; Lau, J.; Alvarez, H. Music for pain relief. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2006, 2, Cd004843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, J.; Zhang, H.; Bao, H.; Hong, H. Music-based interventions for pain relief in patients undergoing hemodialysis: A prisma-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 2021, 100, e24102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chuang, C.H.; Chen, P.C.; Lee, C.S.; Chen, C.H.; Tu, Y.K.; Wu, S.C. Music intervention for pain and anxiety management of the primiparous women during labour: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Adv. Nurs. 2019, 75, 723–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- García-Perdomo, H.A.; Cardona, L.M.M.; Cordoba-Wagner, M.J.; Zapata-Copete, J.A. Music to reduce pain and anxiety in cystoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Complement. Integr. Med. 2018, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garza-Villarreal, E.A.; Pando, V.; Vuust, P.; Parsons, C. Music-induced analgesia in chronic pain conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician 2017, 20, 597–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hung, T.T.; Liu, Y.C.; Tsai, P.C.; Lin, M.F. The pain-relief efficacy of passive music-based interventions in cancer patients undergoing diagnostic biopsies and surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hu Li Za Zhi J. Nurs. 2018, 65, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.L.; Hwang, S.L.; Jiang, P.; Hsiung, N.H. Effect of music therapy on pain after orthopedic surgery-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Pract. 2020, 20, 422–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin-Saavedra, J.S.; Vergara-Mendez, L.D.; Talero-Gutiérrez, C. Music is an effective intervention for the management of pain: An umbrella review. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 2018, 32, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.C.; Zhang, L.Y.; Zhang, Y.L.; Zhang, Y.W.; Xu, X.D.; Zhang, Y.C. Effect of music in endoscopy procedures: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pain Med. 2014, 15, 1786–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Y.; Wei, J.; Guan, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, N.; Mao, M.; Du, W.; Ren, Y.; Shen, H.; et al. Music intervention in pain relief of cardiovascular patients in cardiac procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Med. 2020, 21, 3055–3065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, Q.; Liu, Z.; Pang, X.; Cheng, L. Efficacy of five-element music interventions in perinatal mental health and labor pain: A meta-analysis. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 2020, 40, 101217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yu, R.; Zhuo, Y.; Feng, E.; Wang, W.; Lin, W.; Lin, F.; Li, Z.; Lin, L.; Xiao, L.; Wang, H.; et al. The effect of musical interventions in improving short-term pain outcomes following total knee replacement: A meta-analysis and systematic review. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2020, 15, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, J.P.; Altman, D.G.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Jüni, P.; Moher, D.; Oxman, A.D.; Savovic, J.; Schulz, K.F.; Weeks, L.; Sterne, J.A. The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011, 343, d5928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Higgins, J.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.; Welch, V. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2; Cochrane: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Egger, M.; Smith, G.D.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997, 315, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Simpson, J.A.; Weiner, E.S.C.; Press, O.U. The Oxford English Dictionary; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Corrigan, M.J.; Keeler, J.R.; Miller, H.D.; Khallouq, B.A.B.; Fowler, S.B. Music therapy and retinopathy of prematurity screening: Using recorded maternal singing and heartbeat for post exam recovery. J. Perinatol. 2020, 40, 1780–1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia Guerra, G.; Joffe, A.R.; Sheppard, C.; Hewson, K.; Dinu, I.A.; Hajihosseini, M.; deCaen, A.; Jou, H.; Hartling, L.; Vohra, S.; et al. Music use for sedation in critically ill children (musicc trial): A pilot randomized controlled trial. J. Intensive Care 2021, 9, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartling, L.; Newton, A.S.; Liang, Y.; Jou, H.; Hewson, K.; Klassen, T.P.; Curtis, S. Music to reduce pain and distress in the pediatric emergency department: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2013, 167, 826–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hatem, T.P.; Lira, P.I.; Mattos, S.S. The therapeutic effects of music in children following cardiac surgery. J. Pediatr. 2006, 82, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Noguchi, L.K. The effect of music versus nonmusic on behavioral signs of distress and self-report of pain in pediatric injection patients. J. Music Ther. 2006, 43, 16–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sunitha Suresh, B.S.; de Oliveira, G.S., Jr.; Suresh, S. The effect of audio therapy to treat postoperative pain in children undergoing major surgery: A randomized controlled trial. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2015, 31, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yinger, O.S. Music therapy as procedural support for young children undergoing immunizations: A randomized controlled study. J. Music Ther. 2016, 53, 336–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dogan Baki, E.; Ulu, S.; Yuksek, A.; Arican, H.; Sivaci, R. Does listening to music during tonsillectomy affect sevoflurane consumption? Med. Princ. Pract. 2018, 27, 343–349. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29529606 (accessed on 2 January 2022). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bergomi, P.; Chieppi, M.; Maini, A.; Mugnos, T.; Spotti, D.; Tzialla, C.; Scudeller, L. Nonpharmacological techniques to reduce pain in preterm infants who receive heel-lance procedure: A randomized controlled trial. Res. Theory Nurs. Pract. 2014, 28, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulut, M.; Alemdar, D.K.; Bulut, A.; Şalcı, G. The effect of music therapy, hand massage, and kaleidoscope usage on postoperative nausea and vomiting, pain, fear, and stress in children: A randomized controlled trial. J. Perianesth Nurs. 2020, 35, 649–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Döra, Ö.; Büyük, E.T. Effect of white noise and lullabies on pain and vital signs in invasive interventions applied to premature babies. Pain Manag. Nurs. 2021, 22, 724–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duymaz, T. The effects of music therapy on gross motor functions, pain and level of functional independence in children with cerebral palsy. Ann. Clin. Anal. Med. 2020, 11, 115–119. [Google Scholar]
- Kristjánsdóttir, Ó.; Kristjánsdóttir, G. Randomized clinical trial of musical distraction with and without headphones for adolescents’ immunization pain. Scand. J. Caring. Sci. 2011, 25, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kühlmann, A.Y.R.; van Rosmalen, J.; Staals, L.M.; Keyzer-Dekker, C.M.G.; Dogger, J.; de Leeuw, T.G.; van der Toorn, F.; Jeekel, J.; Wijnen, R.M.H.; van Dijk, M. Music interventions in pediatric surgery (the music under surgery in children study): A randomized clinical trial. Anesth. Analg. 2020, 130, 991–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Longhi, E.; Pickett, N.; Hargreaves, D. Wellbeing and hospitalized children: Can music help? Psychol. Music. 2013, 43, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muzzi, E.; Ronfani, L.; Bossini, B.; Lezcano, C.; Orzan, E.; Barbi, E. Effects of intraoperative auditory stimulation on pain and agitation on awakening after pediatric adenotonsillectomy: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2021, 147, 638–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nilsson, U. The anxiety-and pain-reducing effects of music interventions: A systematic review. AORN J 2008, 87, 780–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shabani, F.; Nayeri, N.D.; Karimi, R.; Zarei, K.; Chehrazi, M. Effects of music therapy on pain responses induced by blood sampling in premature infants: A randomized cross-over trial. Iran. J. Nurs. Midwifery Res. 2016, 21, 391–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tekgündüz, K.; Polat, S.; Gürol, A.; Apay, S.E. Oral glucose and listening to lullaby to decrease pain in preterm infants supported with ncpap: A randomized controlled trial. Pain Manag. Nurs. 2019, 20, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antonelli, E.; Vagnoli, L.; Ciucci, E.; Vernucci, C.; Lachi, F.; Messeri, A. A comparison of nonpharmacologic interventions on the emotional state of children in the emergency department. Pediatr. Emerg. Care 2019, 35, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aydin, D.; Sahiner, N.C. Effects of music therapy and distraction cards on pain relief during phlebotomy in children. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2017, 33, 164–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azeem, M.; Ejaz, Z.; Ashraf, A.; Bukhari, F.; Ali, M.; Rashid, A. Music for pain control following orthodontic initial archwire placement. Pak. J. Med. Health Sci. 2021, 15, 1347–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurdahi Badr, L.; Demerjian, T.; Daaboul, T.; Abbas, H.; Zeineddine, M.H.; Charafeddine, L. Preterm infants exhibited less pain during a heel stick when they were played the same music their mothers listened to during pregnancy. Acta Paediatr. 2017, 106, 438–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balan, R.; Bavdekar, S.B.; Jadhav, S. Can indian classical instrumental music reduce pain felt during venepuncture? Indian J. Pediatr. 2009, 76, 469–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.L.; Lei, Y.Q.; Liu, J.F.; Cao, H.; Yu, X.R.; Chen, Q. Comparison of the effectiveness of music video therapy and music therapy on pain after cardiothoracic surgery in preschool children. Heart Surg. Forum 2021, 24, e299–e304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Konar, M.C.; Islam, K.; Sil, A.; Nayek, K.; Barik, K. Effect of music on outcomes of birth asphyxia: A randomized controlled trial. J. Trop. Pediatrics 2021, 67, fmab009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lin, Z.W.; Liu, J.F.; Xie, W.P.; Chen, Q.; Cao, H. The effect of music therapy on chronic pain, quality of life and quality of sleep in adolescents after transthoracic occlusion of ventricular septal defect. Heart Surg. Forum 2021, 24, e305–e310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Momenabadi, A.; Radmehr, M.; Sadeghi, N. Effect of two methods of acupressure in hugo point and music on severity of pain during iv insertion in children. Pak. J. Med. Health Sci. 2020, 14, 697–700. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, T.N.; Nilsson, S.; Hellström, A.L.; Bengtson, A. Music therapy to reduce pain and anxiety in children with cancer undergoing lumbar puncture: A randomized clinical trial. J. Pediatr. Oncol. Nurs. 2010, 27, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shukla, V.V.; Bansal, S.; Nimbalkar, A.; Chapla, A.; Phatak, A.; Patel, D.; Nimbalkar, S. Pain control interventions in preterm neonates: A randomized controlled trial. Indian Pediatrics 2018, 55, 292–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, L.; Wang, H.; Liu, Q.; Wang, F.; Wang, M.; Sun, J.; Zhao, L. Effect of music intervention on pain responses in premature infants undergoing placement procedures of peripherally inserted central venous catheter: A randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Integr. Med. 2018, 19, 105–109. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382018300520 (accessed on 2 January 2022). [CrossRef]
- Uematsu, H.; Sobue, I. Effect of music (brahms lullaby) and non-nutritive sucking on heel lance in preterm infants: A randomized controlled crossover trial. Paediatr. Child. Health 2019, 24, e33–e39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yu, H.; Liu, Y.; Li, S.; Ma, X. Effects of music on anxiety and pain in children with cerebral palsy receiving acupuncture: A randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2009, 46, 1423–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, J.; Hong-Gu, H.; Zhou, X.; Wei, H.; Gao, Y.; Ye, B.; Liu, Z.; Chan, S.W. Pain relief effect of breast feeding and music therapy during heel lance for healthy-term neonates in china: A randomized controlled trial. Midwifery 2015, 31, 365–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barandouzi, Z.A.; Keshavarz, M.; Montazeri, A.; Ashayeri, H.; Rajaei, Z. Comparison of the analgesic effect of oral sucrose and/or music in preterm neonates: A double-blind randomized clinical trial. Complement. Ther. Med. 2020, 48, 102271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eid, M.M.; Abdelbasset, W.K.; Abdelaty, F.M.; Ali, Z.A. Effect of physical therapy rehabilitation program combined with music on children with lower limb burns: A twelve-week randomized controlled study. Burns 2021, 47, 1146–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- van der Heijden, M.J.E.; Jeekel, J.; Rode, H.; Cox, S.; van Rosmalen, J.; Hunink, M.G.M.; van Dijk, M. Can live music therapy reduce distress and pain in children with burns after wound care procedures? A randomized controlled trial. Burns 2018, 44, 823–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sun, J.; Freeman, B.D.; Natanson, C. Chapter 22—Meta-analysis of clinical trials. In Principles and Practice of Clinical Research, 4th ed.; Gallin, J.I., Ognibene, F.P., Johnson, L.L., Eds.; Academic Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 317–327. [Google Scholar]
- Sauerland, S.; Seiler, C.M. Role of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in evidence-based medicine. World J. Surg. 2005, 29, 582–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Martín-Moreno, M.; Garrido-Ardila, E.M.; Jiménez-Palomares, M.; Gonzalez-Medina, G.; Oliva-Ruiz, P.; Rodríguez-Mansilla, J. Music-based interventions in paediatric and adolescents oncology patients: A systematic review. Children 2021, 8, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Toole, A.; Francis, K.; Pugsley, L. Does music positively impact preterm infant outcomes? Adv. Neonatal Care 2017, 17, 192–202. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28398914 (accessed on 2 January 2022). [CrossRef]
- van der Heijden, M.J.; Araghi, S.O.; Jeekel, J.; Reiss, I.K.; Hunink, M.G.; van Dijk, M. Do hospitalized premature infants benefit from music interventions? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0161848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- da Silva Santa, I.N.; Schveitzer, M.C.; Santos, M.D.; Ghelman, R.; Filho, V.O. Music interventions in pediatric oncology: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Complement. Ther. Med. 2021, 59, 102725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kühlmann, A.Y.R.; de Rooij, A.; Kroese, L.F.; van Dijk, M.; Hunink, M.G.M.; Jeekel, J. Meta-analysis evaluating music interventions for anxiety and pain in surgery. Br. J. Surg. 2018, 105, 773–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kakar, E.; Billar, R.J.; van Rosmalen, J.; Klimek, M.; Takkenberg, J.J.M.; Jeekel, J. Music intervention to relieve anxiety and pain in adults undergoing cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Heart 2021, 8, e001474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hole, J.; Hirsch, M.; Ball, E.; Meads, C. Music as an aid for postoperative recovery in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2015, 386, 1659–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dale, V.H. The impact of perioperative music on abdominal surgery patients’ experience of postoperative pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Perioper. Pract. 2021, 31, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Graven, S.; Browne, J. Auditory development in the fetus and infant. Newborn Infant Nurs. Rev. 2008, 8, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, Q.; Cheng, Q.; Li, H.; Dong, X.; Tu, W. Evaluation of auditory perception development in neonates by quantitative electroencephalography and auditory event-related potentials. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0183728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haslbeck, B.F.; Bassler, D. Music from the very beginning-a neuroscience-based framework for music as therapy for preterm infants and their parents. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colagiuri, B.; Schenk, L.A.; Kessler, M.D.; Dorsey, S.G.; Colloca, L. The placebo effect: From concepts to genes. Neuroscience 2015, 307, 171–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Richard-Lalonde, M.; Gélinas, C.; Boitor, M.; Gosselin, E.; Feeley, N.; Cossette, S.; Chlan, L.L. The effect of music on pain in the adult intensive care unit: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J. Pain Symptom. Manag. 2020, 59, 1304–1319.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devlin, J.W.; Skrobik, Y.; Gélinas, C.; Needham, D.M.; Slooter, A.J.C.; Pandharipande, P.P.; Watson, P.L.; Weinhouse, G.L.; Nunnally, M.E.; Rochwerg, B.; et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adult patients in the ICU. Crit. Care Med. 2018, 46, e825–e873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bhasin, P. Music therapy improves post-operative outcomes-a special perspective. J. Phys. Ther. 2012, 4, 75–77. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1.
Flow chart of the selection strategy and inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Figure 2.
Forest plot for the effects of music on pain score.
Figure 3.
Forest plots for the effects of music on vital signs. (a) Blood pressure, (b) Heart rate, (c) Respiratory rate, and (d) Peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2).
Figure 3.
Forest plots for the effects of music on vital signs. (a) Blood pressure, (b) Heart rate, (c) Respiratory rate, and (d) Peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2).
Figure 4.
Funnel plot of standard difference, with means on the X-axis and standard error on the Y-axis for the effect of music on pain release.
Figure 4.
Funnel plot of standard difference, with means on the X-axis and standard error on the Y-axis for the effect of music on pain release.
Table 1.
Characteristics of the recruited 38 studies.
| Authors & Year | Journal | Country | Study Design | Comparison | Participants, No. | Age, Mean (SD), y/m/w/d | Age Group | Specialization | Setting | Condition | Pain Types | Type/Genres/Titles of Music | Equip | Outcome Measure/Assessment Tools |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antonelli et al., 2019 | Wolters kluwer | Italy | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 57 48 | 8.20 (3.3), y 8.30 (4.1), y | Infant/Children | Emergency | In | ER pressure | Chronic/Procedural | Multiple Combinations | Live | WBS |
| Aydin et al., 2017 | Applied nursing research | Turkey | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 50 50 | 8.68 (2.2), y 9.20 (2.6), y | Infant/Children | Pain clinic | Out | IV insertion | Prick pain | Pop music | SPK | WBS |
| Azeem et al., 2021 | Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials | Pakistan | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 25 25 | 12–16, y ♫ | Adolescent | Dentistry | Out | Postop pain | Chronic/Procedural | -- | -- | VAS |
| Badr et al., 2017 | Acta Paediatr | Lebanon | Cross-over RCT | Music Control | 42 | 34.83 (1.3), GA, w | Newborn | Pediatrics | In | Heel Lance | Prick pain | Kids music/ World music | HDP | N-PASS HR, RR, SpO2 |
| Bakı et al., 2018 | Medical Principles and Practice | Turkey | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 25 25 | 6.60 (2.95), y 6.24 (3.38), y | Infant/Children | General surgery | In | Postop Pain | Postoperative Pain | Kids music | HDP | WBS BP, HR |
| Balan et al., 2009 | Indian Pediatrics | India | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 50 50 | 8.27 (2.05), y 7.42 (2.19), y | Infant/Children | Pain clinic | In | IV insertion | Prick pain | World music | ERP | VAS |
| Barandouzi et al., 2019 | Complementary Therapies in Medicine | Iran | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 30 30 | 34.00 (1.41), GA, w 33.86 (1.35), GA, w | Newborn | Pediatrics | In | IV insertion | Prick pain | Kids music | HDP | PIPP |
| Bergomi et al., 2014 | Research and Theory for Nursing Practice | Italy | Cross-over RCT | Music Control | 35 | 37.00 (5.43), GA, w | Newborn | Neonatology | In | Heel Lance | Prick pain | Classical music | SPK | PIPP |
| Bulut et al., 2020 | Journal of perianesthesia nursing | Turkey | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 35 35 | 7.37 (0.91), y 7.20 (0.67), y | Infant/Children | Pediatric surgery | In | Postop Pain | Postoperative Pain | Classical music | SPK | WBS |
| Corrigan et al., 2020 | Perinatol | USA | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 43 54 | 34.80 (0.86), GA, w 34.50 (0.92), GA, w | Newborn | Ophthalmology | Out | ROP | Chronic/Procedural | Kids music | SPK | PIPP |
| Döra et al., 2021 | Pain management nursing | Turkey | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 22 22 | 32–37, w, GA ♫ | Newborn | Neonatal ICU | In | Blood collection | Prick pain | Classical music | SPK | PIPP HR, RR, SpO2 |
| Duymaz, 2020 | Annals of Clinical and Analytical Medicine | Turkey | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 60 60 | 7.42 (2.40), y 7.60 (2.60), y | Infant/Children | Neurology | Out | Rehabilitation | Chronic/Procedural | Classical music | SPK | WBS |
| Eid et al., 2020 | Burns | Egypt | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 15 15 | 9.83 (1.25), y 9.71 (1.16), y | Infant/Children | Physical therapy | In | Rehabilitation | Chronic/Procedural | Classical music | SPK | VAS |
| Guerra et al., 2021 | Journal of Intensive Care | Canada | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 20 20 | 1.16 (3.5) 2.02 (3.5) | Infant/Children | Pediatric ICU | In | ICU procedure | Chronic/Procedural | Classical music | HDP | FLACC |
| Hartling et al., 2013 | JAMA Pediatrics | Canada | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 21 21 | 64.00 (50.27), m 78.00 (70.24), m | Infant/Children | Pediatrics | In | IV insertion | Prick pain | Multiple Combinations | SPK | FPS-R HR |
| Hatem et al., 2006 | Jornal de Pediatria | Brasil | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 61 18 | 1d-16y ♫ | Infant/Children | Cardiology | In | Postop Pain | Postoperative Pain | Classical music | HDP | FPS BP, HR, RR, SpO2 |
| Huang et al., 2021 | The Heart Surgery Forum | China | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 42 42 | 4.8 (1.7), y 5.9 (1.7), y | Infant/Children | Pediatric Surgery | In | Postop pain | Postoperative Pain | -- | ERP | WBS HR, BP, RR, SpO2 |
| Konar et al., 2021 | Journal of Tropical Pediatrics | India | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 1546 1549 | 34.3 (3.1), w 34.5 (3.0), w | Newborn | Neonatology | In | IV insertion | Prick pain | World music | SPK | N-PASS |
| Kristjánsdóttir et al., 2011 | Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences | Iceland | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 79 39 | 14.00 (0.18), y | Adolescent | - | Out | Immunization | Prick pain | Multiple Combinations | HDP/SPK | VAS |
| Kühlmann et al., 2020 | Anesthesia and Analgesia | Netherlands | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 59 59 | 6.90 (14.46), m 7.30 (16.89), m | Infant/Children | Pediatric surgery | In | Postop Pain | Postoperative Pain | Classical music | HDP | COMFORT-B |
| Lin et al., 2021 | The Heart Surgery Forum | China | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 25 25 | 7.3 (1.0), y 6.9 (1.2), y | Infant/Children | Pediatric Surgery | Out | Postop chronic pain | Chronic/Procedural | Pop music | SPK | VAS |
| Longhi et al., 2013 | Psychology of Music | UK | Cross-over RCT | Music Control | 37 | 7d-4y ♫ | Infant/Children | Pediatrics | In | Illness pressure | Chronic/Procedural | Kids music | Live | CHEOPS HR, SpO2 |
| Momenabadi et al., 2020 | Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences | Iran | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 30 30 | 51.50 (10.52), m 51.33 (8.63), m | Infant/Children | Pediatric | In | IV insertion | Prick pain | -- | SPK | OPS |
| Muzzi et al., 2021 | JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg | Italy | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 26 28 | 4.5 (3.6–6.0), y ♪ 5.2 (3.6–7.0), y ♪ | Infant/Children | Otorhinolaryngology | In | Postop pain | Postoperative Pain | Classical music | ERP | WBS, VAS |
| Nguyen et al., 2010 | Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing | Vietnam | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 20 20 | 8.80 (1.59), y 9.40 (1.93), y | Infant/Children | Pediatrics | In | Lumbar puncture | Prick pain | Special composition | ERP | NRS BP, HR, RR, SpO2 |
| Nilsson et al., 2009 | Paediatric Anaesthesia | Sweden | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 40 40 | 12 (7–16), y ♪ 13.5 (7–16), y ♪ | Infant/Children | General surgery | In | Postop Pain | Postoperative Pain | Special composition | SPK | VAS |
| Noguchi et al., 2006 | Journal of Music Therapy | USA | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 21 20 | 4.55 (0.65), y | Infant/Children | Pediatrics | Out | Immunization | Prick pain | Special composition | HDP | FPS |
| Shabani et al., 2016 | Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research | Ireland | Cross-over RCT | Music Control | 20 | 29–36, GA, w ♫ | Newborn | Neonatology | In | IV insertion | Prick pain | Special composition | SPK | NFCS HR, SpO2 |
| Shukla et al., 2018 | Indian Pediatrics | India | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 49 51 | 8.10 (8.21), d 6.50 (4.38), d | Newborn | Pediatrics | In | Heel Lance | Prick pain | World music | SPK | PIPP |
| Suresh et al., 2015 | Pediatric Surgery International | USA | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 18 19 | 10.90 (5.20), y 12.40 (5.34), y | Infant/Children | General surgery | In | Postop Pain | Postoperative Pain | Kids music | HDP | FPS-R |
| Tang et al., 2018 | European Journal of Integrative Medicine | China | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 30 30 | 32.57 (1.76), GA, w 32. 57 (1.83), w | Newborn | Pediatrics | In | PICC | Chronic/Procedural | Kids music | SPK | PIPP HR, SpO2 |
| Tekgündüz et al., 2019 | Pain management nursing | Turkey | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 35 37 | 2.00 (1.91), d 2.49 (2.12), d | Newborn | Neonatology | In | C-PAP | Chronic/Procedural | Kids music | SPK | PIPP; NIPS HR, SpO2 |
| Uematsu et al., 2019 | Paediatrics and Child Health (Canada) | Japan | Cross-over RCT | Music Control | 25 | 33.80 (1.5), GA, w | Newborn | Neonatology | In | Heel Lance | Prick pain | Classical music | SPK | PIPP HR, SpO2 |
| ven der Heijden et al., 2018 | Burns | South Africa | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 71 64 | 24.30 (71.79), m 20.80 (42.04), m | Infant/Children | Intensive care | In | Wound care | Chronic/Procedural | Multiple Combinations | Live | COMFORT-B |
| ven der Heijden et al., 2019 | Journal of pediatric psychology | South Africa | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 75 54 | 7.50 (11.27), y 7.70 (8.81), y | Infant/Children | Emergency | In | ER procedure | Chronic/Procedural | Special composition | SPK | FPS-R HR |
| Yinger et al., 2016 | Journal of Music Therapy | USA | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 29 29 | 48.10 (6.7), m | Infant/Children | Pediatrics | Out | Immunization | Prick pain | Kids music | Live | CAMPIS-R |
| Yu et al., 2009 | International Journal of Nursing Studies | China | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 30 30 | 8.26 (2.83), y 7.87 (3.35), y | Infant/Children | Traditional Chinese medicine | Out | Acupuncture | Prick pain | Pop music | HDP | WBS BP, HR, RR |
| Zhu et al., 2015 | Midwifery | China | Parallel RCT | Music Control | 62 61 | 3.37 (0.58), d 3.11 (0.49), d | Newborn | Neonatology | In | Heel Lance | Prick pain | Classical music | SPK | NIPS |
Note. CAMPIS-R, Child-Adult Medical Procedure Interaction Scale-Revised; CHEOPS, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale; COMFORT-B, COMFORT-B score; FPS, Faces pain scale; FPS-R, Faces pain scale-Revised; FLACC, Face Legs Activity Cry Consolability; N-PASS, Neonatal Pain, Agitation and Sedation Scale; NFCS, Neonatal Facial Coding System; NIPS, Neonatal Infant Pain Scale; OPS, Oucher pain scale; PIPP, Premature Infant Pain Profile; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale; WBS, Wong Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale; BP, Blood Pressure; HR, Heart Rate; RR, Respiratory Rate; SPK, speaker; HDP, headphones; ERP, earphones; Live, Live performance; y, years; m, months; w, weeks; GA, gestational age; d, days; ♪, median (range); ♫, range.
Table 2.
Subgroup analyses of music for pain release.
| Intervention/Moderator | k | n | Effect Size | 95% CI-L | 95% CI-U | p Value | I2 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of Pain | |||||||
| Chronic/Procedural | 12 | 869 | −0.41 | −0.64 | −0.64 | <0.001 | 63 |
| Postoperative pain | 8 | 571 | −0.49 | −0.90 | −0.08 | 0.018 | 81 |
| Prick pain | 20 | 4161 | −0.66 | −1.10 | −0.23 | 0.003 | 95 |
| Music style | |||||||
| Classical music | 11 | 738 | −0.71 | −1.00 | −0.42 | <0.001 | 71 |
| Kids music | 9 | 489 | −0.44 | −0.62 | −0.27 | <0.001 | 0 |
| Multiple combinations | 5 | 400 | −0.08 | −0.28 | 0.12 | 0.420 | 0 |
| Pop music | 3 | 210 | −0.45 | −0.73 | −0.18 | 0.001 | 0 |
| Special composition | 5 | 254 | −0.45 | −0.97 | 0.07 | 0.092 | 79 |
| World music | 4 | 3316 | −0.78 | −1.96 | 0.40 | 0.196 | 98 |
| Type of Equipment | |||||||
| HDP/ERP | 15 | 862 | −0.49 | −0.73 | −0.26 | <0.001 | 63 |
| SPK | 20 | 4357 | −0.63 | −1.07 | −0.19 | 0.005 | 96 |
| Live | 4 | 332 | −0.15 | −0.36 | 0.06 | 0.160 | 0 |
| Other rating/Self-rating | |||||||
| Other rating | 19 | 4208 | −0.57 | −1.04 | −0.10 | 0.017 | 96 |
| Self-rating | 21 | 1393 | −0.54 | −0.76 | −0.32 | <0.001 | 75 |
Note. k, number of studies; n, number of participants; CI, confidence interval; I2, heterogeneity testing; SMD, standardized mean difference; VAS, visual analog scale; SPK, speaker; HDP, headphone; ERP, earphones; Live, Live performance.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Ting, B.; Tsai, C.-L.; Hsu, W.-T.; Shen, M.-L.; Tseng, P.-T.; Chen, D.T.-L.; Su, K.-P.; Jingling, L. Music Intervention for Pain Control in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11040991
AMA Style
Ting B, Tsai C-L, Hsu W-T, Shen M-L, Tseng P-T, Chen DT-L, Su K-P, Jingling L. Music Intervention for Pain Control in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(4):991. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11040991
Chicago/Turabian StyleTing, Berne, Chia-Lin Tsai, Wei-Ti Hsu, Mei-Ling Shen, Ping-Tao Tseng, Daniel Tzu-Li Chen, Kuan-Pin Su, and Li Jingling. 2022. "Music Intervention for Pain Control in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 4: 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11040991
APA StyleTing, B., Tsai, C. -L., Hsu, W. -T., Shen, M. -L., Tseng, P. -T., Chen, D. T. -L., Su, K. -P., & Jingling, L. (2022). Music Intervention for Pain Control in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(4), 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11040991
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
