MODELO DE LLENADO

Table 3. Music therapy versus other treatment: social/emotional functioning (Continued)

between the 3 therapies does not make sense. The degrees of freedom within groups are not correct for a start. To interpret this table we need far more information. Even if we believe the results in table 2, the paired compar- isons, all we can deduce is that the treatments were dif- ferent. They may be different in the level of participa- tion in the therapies, but that does not tell us whether the therapy brought any benefit.The article reports that the number of correct answers for each of the 3 groups was summed for baseline and post treatment, and then a one-way analysis of variance conducted. No information on how the data were analysed, whether the baseline was used as a covariate. Table 1 analysis of variance, although showing significant differences between the 3 therapies does not seem valid. For example, the degrees of freedom within groups are not correct. To interpret this table far more information is required. Even if the results in ta- ble 2 are accepted, all that can be deduced is that the treatments were different. They may be different in the level of participation in the therapies, but that does not explain whether the therapy itself brought any benefit Guétin

(2009)

Anxiety: Anova with repeated measures (D0, W4, W8

and W16) showed a significant difference (p<0.001) in the Hamilton Scale score. At baseline, the anxiety level score was comparable: 22 ( ± 5.3) music therapy group and 21.1 ( ± 5.6) control group. This level decreased further in the music therapy group at W16, 8.4 ( ± 3.7) versus 20.8 ( ±6.2) for the control group. The changes between D0 and W16/ W24 were significantly different between the 2 groups (p < 0.001), with lower anxiety levels for the experimental group

Depression: ANOVA with repeated measures, with ad-

justment to the GDS score at D0, showed a significant difference between the 2 groups (p = 0.001) at W16 (end of treatment)

The overall changes were not significant over time, each group progressed in a different manner during follow-up (significant time/group interaction p = 0.0095) At W16, scores improved with 7.7 ( ± 4.6) points, i.e. 47. 1% in the music therapy group; mean depression score of 16.7 ( ±6.2). In the control group scores improved with 0.2 ( ±4.4) points, i.e. 1.7%, mean depression score of 11.8 ( ± 7.4)

At week 24 (follow-up) the depression score was 12.5 ( ± 6.4) in the music therapy group and 12.1 ( ± 7.6) in the control group and differed significantly from D0 (p= 0.03)

MMSE:

- please note that the risk of bias in this study is uncertain (see figure 2), so please interpret the reported results with caution

- the precise intervention offered in the control condi- tion is not clearly described, it is only stated that they participated in ”sessions involving rest and reading“

Table 3. Music therapy versus other treatment: social/emotional functioning (Continued)

no significant differences between D0 and W16, both in experimental as control group

Table 4. Active group music therapy versus individual listening

active group music therapy individual listening

Brotons/Koger (2000) Language skills

Significant main effects for con- dition (n-20): Music versus Conversation: F(1,19)=7.4, p= 0.1Speech versus fluency F(1. 19)=10.581, p=.004 with per- formance better in music rela- tive to conversation and fluency relative to content. No signif- icant interaction effect: Perfor- mance during music was bet- ter than conversation for both speech content and fluency. (p= .09). No difference on subscale auditory verbal comprehension (n-19; p=>.1). No difference on MMSE before/after 2 weeks posttreatment. No significance overall aphasia quotient: (n-10; p>.1)

Clark et. al (1998) Agitation

A significant difference (T(2.50;p:<.05) was found between total no. of aggres- sive behaviours between music (M-65.6) and no music (M-121.6). For separate be- haviours only for hitting (T 2.30; p:<0.5). Length of bathing: no difference between music and no music

Gerdner (2000) Agitation

Freq. of agitated behaviours was significantly less both during and after individualised music. No significant difference be- tween baseline and first 20 min- utes of classical minutes. Signif- icant decrease did occur in the final 10 minutes. Both types of music were more effective than baseline, with more effect for in- dividualised music

Gerdner (2000) Agitation

Freq. of agitated behaviours was signifi- cantly less both during and after individu- alised music. No significant difference be- tween baseline and first 20 minutes of clas- sical minutes. Significant decrease did oc- cur in the final 10 minutes. Both types of music were more effective than baseline, with more effect for individualised music

Groene (1993) AgitationSignificant difference

in mean seating/proximity time in favor of music over the read- ing treatment (p<.001). No sig- nificant effects or interactions in seating/proximity behavior for the factors sex, age, or months

Guétin (2009)

Anxiety: Anova with repeated measures

(D0, W4, W8 and W16) showed a signifi- cant difference (p<0.001) in the Hamilton Scale score. At baseline, the anxiety level score was comparable: 22 ( ± 5.3) music therapy group and 21.1 ( ± 5.6) control group. This level decreased further in the 37 Music therapy for people with dementia (Review)

Table 4. Active group music therapy versus individual listening (Continued)

on site at the facility. No signif- icant differences in wandering behavior were revealed between the mostly music and mostly reading group. There was a sig- nificant difference between the mean wandering scores during the 5 music sessions versus the 2 reading sessions of the mostly music group in favour of the music sessions (t(14)=2.25, p<0, 41. No significant difference in pre and posttest of MMSE

music therapy group at W16, 8.4 ( ± 3.7) versus 20.8 ( ±6.2) for the control group. The changes between D0 and W16/ W24 were significantly different between the 2 groups (p < 0.001), with lower anxiety lev- els for the experimental group

Depression: ANOVA with repeated mea-

sures, with adjustment to the GDS score at D0, showed a significant difference be- tween the 2 groups (p = 0.001) at W16 (end of treatment)

The overall changes were not significant over time, each group progressed in a differ- ent manner during follow-up (significant time/group interaction p = 0.0095) At W16, scores improved with 7.7 ( ± 4. 6) points, i.e. 47.1% in the music therapy group; mean depression score of 16.7 ( ±6. 2). In the control group scores improved with 0.2 ( ±4.4) points, i.e. 1.7%, mean depression score of 11.8 ( ± 7.4)

At week 24 (follow-up) the depression score was 12.5 ( ± 6.4) in the music ther- apy group and 12.1 ( ± 7.6) in the control group and differed significantly from D0 (p=0.03)

MMSE:

no significant differences between D0 and W16, both in experimental as control group

Raglio (2008) Agitation

There was a significant decrease in the global NPI scores in the experimental group in compari- son with the control group (in- teraction time x group: F=5.06, p=0.002). Differences were sig- nificant at after 8 weeks (F=9. 85; p=0.003); after 16 weeks (F= 21.21; p=0<0.001) and after 20 weeks (F=12.65; p=0.0007) There were no changes in MMSE scores in both the exper- imental group and the control group

The Barthel Index score signif- icantly decreased over time in both the experimental (59 to 52)

Table 4. Active group music therapy versus individual listening (Continued)

as in the control group (51 to 46); F=8.91; p=0.001) Raglio

(n.d)

Agitation

There was a significant decrease over time in the global NPI scores in both groups (F=9.06, p<0.001), a significant differ- ence between groups (F=4.84, p < 0,5) with a larger reduction of behavioural disturbances in the experimental group at the end of the treatment (T1) (t=-2,58; p<0.001; Cohen’s d=0,63) In analysis of single NPI item scores it shows that delusions, agitation and apathy signifi- cantly improved in the exper- imental group and not in the control group

In both groups depression, anx- iety and irritability significantly improved. Abberant motor ac- tivity improved in the control group and not in the experimen- tal group

Post hoc analysis showed that the main improvements were found at T1 (end of treatment) and persisted over time at the follow up (T2)

The patients communicative and relational skills did not im- prove from baseline to the end of the treatment in the experi- mental group

Sung (2006) Agitation

The mean number of agitated behaviours was significantly de- creased following a group music program with movement inter- ventions, by 1.17 at week 2 (of 4 weeks) and further decreased by 0.5 at week 4, also significantly lower in comparison to the con- trol group. The mean decrease of the total period of 4 weeks amounted to 1.67 less agitated

39