Summary of findings 1. Music versus standard care for coronary heart disease.
| Music versus standard care for coronary heart disease | ||||||
| Patient or population: people with coronary heart disease Settings: Intervention: music versus standard care | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Music versus standard care | |||||
| Psychological Distress POMS | The mean psychological distress in the intervention groups was 1.26 lower (2.30 to 0.22 lower) | 228 (5 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | |||
| Anxiety (all measures) NRS, VAS, HADS, STAI | The mean anxiety (all measures) in the intervention groups was 0.70 standard deviations lower (1.17 to 0.22 lower) | 353 (10 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | |||
| State anxiety (MI patients) STAI | The mean state anxiety (MI patients) in the intervention groups was 5.87 lower (7.99 to 3.75 lower) | 243 (6 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | |||
| Heart rate bpm | The mean heart rate in the intervention groups was 3.62 lower (6.28 to 0.95 lower) | 828 (13 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | |||
| Respiratory rate breaths per minute | The mean respiratory rate in the intervention groups was 2.50 lower (3.61 to 1.39 lower) | 442 (7 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,4 | |||
| Systolic blood pressure | The mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention groups was 5.52 lower (7.43 to 3.60 lower) | 775 (11 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | |||
| Pain VAS, NRS | The mean pain in the intervention groups was 0.43 standard deviations lower (0.80 to 0.05 lower) | 562 (8 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3,5 | |||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1The majority of the trials were assessed as being at high risk of bias 2Results were inconsistent across studies as evidenced by I² = 77%. 3Wide confidence interval 4Results were inconsistent across studies as evidenced by I² = 79%. 5Results were inconsistent across studies as evidenced by I² = 81%.