Back

Music listening for chronic pain management: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and evaluation of intervention reporting quality

Garrido-Pedrosa, J.; Saez, M. T.; Zapata, L.; Porto, M. F.; Valenzuela, R.; Rodriguez-Fornells, A.; Fernandez-Duenas, V.; Grau-Sanchez, J.

2026-07-13 pain medicine
10.64898/2026.07.08.26357000 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Chronic pain is a multidimensional condition that often persists despite conventional treatment and adversely affects multiple domains of daily life. Music listening has emerged as a promising non-pharmacological intervention, with accumulating evidence supporting its beneficial effects on pain and associated psychological outcomes. However, despite growing evidence of efficacy, the translation of music listening into routine clinical practice remains limited, partly because intervention reporting has received comparatively little attention. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of music listening interventions for chronic pain and systematically assess the methodological quality and completeness of intervention reporting to identify barriers to reproducibility and clinical implementation. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science through June 2025, with no date restrictions on publication. Randomized controlled trials involving adults with chronic pain receiving music listening interventions were included. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Intervention reporting was evaluated using the TIDieR checklist, and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed for pain intensity outcomes. Results: Ten RCTs involving 538 participants were included. Music listening interventions varied substantially in delivery, duration, and music selection procedures, reflecting considerable heterogeneity in intervention design. Most studies reported significant improvements in pain and psychological outcomes. Meta-analysis of eight trials (10 effect estimates), demonstrated a moderate reduction in pain intensity (SMD = -0.53, 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.11, p = 0.014; I2 = 76.2%). Although intervention rationale and procedures were generally well described, reporting of intervention modifications, treatment fidelity, and adherence was frequently incomplete. These reporting deficiencies may compromise reproducibility and limit translation into clinical practice. Conclusions: Music listening appears to be a safe, accessible, and scalable non-pharmacological intervention for chronic pain management, with benefits extending beyond pain reduction to psychological wellbeing, quality of life, and functioning. However, incomplete reporting of key intervention components may limit reproducibility and hinder clinical implementation. Future trials should adopt standardized and transparent reporting standards to facilitate implementation into clinical practice.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Journal of Pain
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.5%
2
Pain
78 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
12.4%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.7%
4
BMC Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
50% of probability mass above
5
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
6
European Journal of Pain
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.1%
7
Frontiers in Pain Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
8
Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 29%
3.5%
10
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
77 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.6%
11
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.4%
12
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
13
British Journal of Anaesthesia
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
14
JMIR Formative Research
33 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.5%
15
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
16
Brain Research Bulletin
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
17
BMJ
51 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
18
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.8%
19
Brain Stimulation
125 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
20
Clinical and Translational Science
22 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
21
Neurotherapeutics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%