Music for medical indications in the neonatal period: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the efficacy of music for medical indications in term or preterm neonates. METHODS: We searched 17 electronic databases, subject bibliographies, reference lists and trials registries. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity in outcomes so a qualitative analysis is presented. RESULTS: Nine randomised trials were included. The methodological quality was generally poor (median Jadad score = 1). The outcomes most commonly reported were physiological measures (heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, oxygen saturation (SaO2)), behavioural state and pain. Six studies evaluated music for the painful procedures circumcision (three trials) and heel prick (three trials). For circumcisions, one high quality pilot study (n = 23) showed benefits of music for the outcomes of HR, SaO2 and pain, while two low quality studies showed no difference. For heel prick, three low quality studies provided some evidence that music may be beneficial primarily for measures of behaviour and pain. The remaining studies evaluated the use of music in preterm infants to improve physiological and behavioural parameters (n = 31; benefits observed for behavioural parameters), to reinforce non-nutritive sucking via use of a pacifier activated lullaby (n = 32; significant increase in feeding rates), and to influence physiological stability and behaviours in infants with chronic lung disease (n = 22; no significant differences for outcomes assessed). CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity in study populations, interventions and outcomes precludes definitive conclusions around efficacy. There is preliminary evidence for some therapeutic benefits of music for specific indications; however, these findings need to be confirmed in methodologically rigorous trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".