Assessment of quality of scientific evidence on musical
					interventions in caring for cancer patients

Silva, Vladimir Araujo da; Leão, Eliseth Ribeiro; Silva, Maria Júlia Paes da

doi:10.1590/1807-57622013.0875

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Interface - Comunicação, Saúde, Educação

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • Interface 18 (50) • Jul-Sep 2014 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-57622013.0875 copy

Assessment of quality of scientific evidence on musical interventions in caring for cancer patients

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

This integrative review aimed to assess the quality of scientific evidence on musical interventions in caring for cancer patients. The search strategy was conducted in July 2013, using descriptors indexed in the Bireme, Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Scopus databases. We selected four randomized clinical trials (two of high and two of low methodological quality) and two systematic reviews (both of high methodological quality). The greatest limitations of the clinical trials were in the descriptions of the resources and musical structures used; and of the systematic reviews, in their focus on the methodological designs. Most of the studies had high methodological quality, but the resources and musical structures used were neither described nor discussed, thereby trivializing the therapeutic potential of music and limiting replication of the studies and incorporation of evidence into clinical practice.

Medical oncology; Oncologic nursing; Neoplasms; Music; Music therapy

Items	Studies selected
	S1	S3	S5	S6
Was the study described as randomized?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Was the study described as double-blind?	No	No	No	No
Was there a description of exclusions and losses?	Yes	Yes	No	No
Was the method to generate the randomization sequence described and appropriate?	Yes	Yes	No	No
Was the double-blind method described and appropriate?	No	No	No	No
Points	3	3	1	1

Items	Studies selected
Items	S2	S4
1. Was a project provided “a priori”?	Yes	Yes
2. Was there duplication in the selection of studies and data extraction?	Yes	Yes
3. Was a comprehensive bibliographic investigation/search performed?	Yes	Yes
4. Was the publication status (in other words, gray literature) used as an inclusion criterion?	Yes	Yes
5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?	No	Yes
6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?	Yes	Yes
7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies evaluated and documented?	Yes	Yes
8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used properly in formulating the conclusions?	Yes	Yes
9. Were the methods used to match the results from the studies appropriate?	Yes	Yes
10. Was the likelihood of publication bias evaluated?	Yes	Yes
11. Were conflicts of interest informed?	Yes	Yes
Quality	10	11

UNESP Distrito de Rubião Jr, s/nº, 18618-000 Campus da UNESP- Botucatu - SP - Brasil, Caixa Postal 592, Tel.: (55 14) 3880-1927 - Botucatu - SP - Brazil
E-mail: intface@fmb.unesp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Collaborators

Vladimir Araujo da Silva was responsible for the conception, design, analysis and data interpretation, and for writing the manuscript. Eliseth Ribeiro Leão was responsible for the conception, design, data analysis, critical review and approval of the version to be published. Maria Júlia Paes da Silva was responsible for the conception, data interpretation, writing, critical review and approval of the version to be published.