Straw 1991.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT 2‐arm parallel‐group design
Participants	Adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy Diagnosis: no further details provided Total N randomized: unclear N randomized to music group: unclear N randomized to control group: unclear N analyzed in music group: 9 N analyzed in control group: 10 Mean age: 49 years Sex: 13 (27%) females, 26 (73%) males Ethnicity: not provided Setting: unclear if inpatient or outpatient Country: USA
Interventions	2 study groups: Music group: listening to pre‐recorded music Control group: listening to guided imagery and relaxation tape Music selections provided: a music tape was created by the researcher. If the participants disliked the music, they could listen to a tape of their own. Number of sessions: participants listened to tape during chemotherapy treatments and at home. Participants were encouraged to listen to the tape each day. Length of sessions: 30‐40 min Categorized as music medicine
Outcomes	Anxiety (STAI‐S): post‐test scores QoL (Functional Living Index): post‐test scores Level of control: not included in this review
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Random assignment of subjects to condition involved choosing pieces of paper from a box. Half of the pieces had 'one' written on them, and half a 'two'. In this way, subjects had an equal chance being assigned to either group".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Not reported but we assumed that lots were drawn in the presence of the subjects.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Personnel and participants were not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes	Low risk	This study did not address objective outcomes.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes	High risk	Self‐report measures were used for subjective outcomes.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	It was unclear whether the number of participants analyszd equalled the number of participants recruited.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No evidence of selective reporting
Other bias	Low risk	—