Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40528854›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Reporting Guidelines for Music-based Intervention: an update and validation study.

Sheri L Robb, Stacey Springs, Emmeline Edwards, Tasha L Golden, Julene K Johnson, Debra S Burns, Melita Belgrave, Joke Bradt, Christian Gold, Assal Habibi and 4 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Music-based interventions for chronic pain management.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Sheri L RobbSchool of Nursing and School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, United States.
Stacey SpringsFaculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Emmeline EdwardsNational Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Tasha L GoldenCenter for Arts in Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Julene K JohnsonInstitute for Health & Aging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Debra S BurnsCollege of Communication and Fine Arts, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, United States.
Melita BelgraveSchool of Music, Dance, and Theatre, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States.
Joke BradtDepartment of Creative Arts Therapies, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Christian GoldNORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS, Bergen, Norway.
Assal HabibiBrain and Creativity Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
John R IversenDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Miriam LenseVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.
Jessica A MacLeanDepartment of Speech, Language, Hearing Sciences and Program in Neuroscience, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, United States.
Susan M PerkinsSchool of Medicine and Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Detailed intervention reporting is essential to interpretation, replication, and translation of music-based interventions (MBIs). The 2011 Objective: To update and validate the 2011 reporting guidelines using a rigorous Delphi approach that involved an interdisciplinary group of MBI researchers; and to develop an explanation and elaboration guidance statement to support dissemination and usage. Methods: We followed the methodological framework for developing reporting guidelines recommended by the EQUATOR Network and guidance recommendations for developing health research reporting guidelines. Our three-stage process included: (1) an initial field scan, (2) a consensus process using Delphi surveys (two rounds) and Expert Panel meetings, and (3) development and dissemination of an explanation and elaboration document. Results: First-Round survey findings revealed that the original checklist items were capturing content that investigators deemed essential to MBI reporting; however, it also revealed problems with item wording and terminology. Subsequent Expert Panel meetings and the Second-Round survey centered on reaching consensus for item language. The revised RG-MBI checklist has a total of 12-items that pertain to eight different components of MBI interventions including name, theory/scientific rationale, content, interventionist, individual/group, setting, delivery schedule, and treatment fidelity. Conclusion: We recommend that authors, journal editors, and reviewers use the RG-MBI guidelines, in conjunction with methods-based guidelines (e.g., CONSORT) to accelerate and improve the scientific rigor of MBI research.

Indexed as

interventionmusicmusic therapyreporting guidelinesreporting quality

Identifiers

PMID40528854
PMCPMC12171218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.