SynthesisPloS one2025
Effect of music therapy on sleep quality in elderly: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of music-based interventions on sleep quality in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Comparing the sleep benefits of Nature-Based Interventions: Evidence from a Bayesian Network meta-analysis.iScience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSleep disturbances are common among older adults, affecting up to 50% of this population and significantly impacting quality of life and health outcomes. Music therapy has been proposed as a non-pharmacological intervention to improve sleep quality in this population, but evidence regarding its effectiveness remains inconsistent across individual studies. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesize available evidence on the effectiveness of music therapy interventions for improving sleep quality in elderly adults..
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. Major databases were searched for studies evaluating music interventions for sleep quality in adults aged 50 + years. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for RCTs and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for non-RCTs. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using both common effect and random effects models. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
resultsThe initial search retrieved 473 articles from electronic databases. After removing duplicates and screening, 10 studies (6 RCTs, 4 non-RCTs) published between 2010 and 2023 with 602 participants met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The random effects model showed significant improvement in sleep quality with music therapy (SMD: -0.79; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.33; P < .001). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (I² = 79%; Q = 42.54; P < .001). Subgroup analysis revealed significant benefits in RCTs (SMD: -0.59; 95% CI, -1.11 to -0.07) but not in non-RCTs (SMD: -1.08; 95% CI, -2.36 to 0.19). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of findings, and no publication bias was detected. GRADE assessment indicated very low certainty of evidence for both RCTs and non-RCTs due to risk of bias concerns and substantial heterogeneity.
conclusionsMusic therapy demonstrates significant improvement in sleep quality among older adults; however, the very low certainty of evidence based on GRADE assessment suggests caution in clinical recommendations. Future research should address methodological limitations, particularly regarding bias in outcome measurement and intervention implementation, to provide more definitive evidence for clinical practice guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.