Pool 2012.
| Methods | RCT Cross‐over trial with 2 groups |
|
| Participants | TBI participants in subacute rehabilitation Diagnosis: haemorrhage (N = 5) 50%, stroke (N = 2) 20%, traumatic brain injury (N = 3) 30% Time since onset: mean 11.55 years (138.6 months) N randomised to experimental condition: 5 N randomised to control condition: 5 N analysed in experimental group: 3 N analysed in control group: 5 Mean age: 53.8 years Sex: 6 females (60%), 4 males (40%) Ethnicity: not reported Setting: community day centres Country: UK |
|
| Interventions | 2 study groups: 1. Music intervention group: 8 sessions of music therapy followed by another 8 sessions of music therapy followed by 8 weeks of standard care/follow‐up 2. Control group: 8 weeks of standard care followed by 8 sessions of music therapy followed by another 8 sessions of music therapy followed by 8 weeks of follow‐up Music therapy intervention was musical attention‐training exercises and songwriting In this review we only used the first phase of this study (8 sessions), before the cross‐over Number of sessions: 8 sessions on a weekly basis Length of sessions: 60 minutes |
|
| Outcomes | Cognitive function: Test of Everyday Attention, Immediate Recall subtest from the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test‐Third Edition Mood: POMS‐Bipolar version, satisfaction of emotional needs (developed for this study) Change scores were used |
|
| Notes | For mood outcomes, this study used the following POMS‐Bipolar form subscales: agreeable‐hostile, composed‐anxious, energetic‐tired, and elated‐depressed only. As total scores were not available, we could not include these outcomes in our meta‐analyses 1 review author (JB) computed change scores |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Randomisation through flipping of coin |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Allocation concealment through flipping of coin |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | It was not possible to blind the participants or professionals delivering the intervention |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes | High risk | Self report measures were used for subjective outcomes |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes | Low risk | Outcome assessors for the objective outcomes were blinded. Quote: "The test administrators were not informed about which time‐point each participant was at in the treatment schedule. Therefore, the administrators were blinded to the treatment conditions for each participant" (p117) |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Attrition reported as 2 (20%). Reasons for attrition not given. Quote: "Two subjects dropped out from the total number of ten subjects recruited" (p337) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | There are no indications of selective reporting for this study |
| Free from financial conflict of interest | Low risk | No funding support was reported |